Moore County NcArchives Court.....Brady, V. Wilson 1825
************************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://www.usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://www.usgwarchives.net/nc/ncfiles.htm
************************************************

File contributed for use in USGenWeb Archives by:
Deb Haines http://www.genrecords.net/emailregistry/vols/00003.html#0000719 January 25, 2009, 7:55 pm

Source: Nc Reports Vol 11, 1897
Written: 1825

December Term 1825

BRADY v. WILSON. 

From Moore.

It is not actionable to charge a man with burning an out-house not parcel of 
the dwelling-house.

This was an action of slander, tried below before Ruffin, Judge. The 
declaration contained two counts; in the first, the words laid were, "that 
Carrol Brady burned his, the defendant's, dwelling house;" in the second, the 
words were, "that Carrol Brady burned his, the defendant's, house."

Upon the trial, there was no evidence given of (94) defendant's having spoken, 
the words laid in the first count; but several witnesses testified that they 
had heard defendant say "that Brady had burned three houses belonging to him 
(the defendant) in the night time." The houses alluded to and described by the 
defendant, in conversation with the witnesses, were erected on a piece of land 
belonging to the defendant, and situated about four miles from his residence. 
They were log houses, on a small plantation, and had been occasionally 
occupied as a dwelling house and kitchen by tenants, to whom the defendant let 
the land from year to year; they were burned down in the night time, but had 
not in any manner been used during that year; the plantation was untenanted, 
and fences thrown down. In all the conversations, the defendant described the 
houses burned as is herein stated, or the witness (as defendant knew) was 
acquainted with the situation. To one of the witnesses, defendant said that he 
believed Brady's reason for burning the houses was to get one Chavers as his 
tenant the next year, and prevent his living on defendant's land.

On this evidence, defendant moved for a non-suit; the Judge, however, 
submitted the case to the jury, with leave to the defendant, in case plaintiff 
had a verdict, to move to set it aside and enter a non-suit, if the words were 
not actionable. The jury found the defendant not guilty on the first count, 
but guilty on the second, and assessed damages to $5. Defendant moved for a 
non-suit, and the Court ordered a non-suit, on the ground that, although the 
acts charged upon the plaintiff might flow from a wicked and depraved heart, 
and involve great guilt in foro conscientioe, yet inasmuch as the words did 
not impute to him any felony or other crime, the temporal penalty of which 
would be legally infamous, the action at common law could not be supported. 
Thereupon, the plaintiff appealed to this Court.

Hall, Judge.—We think that, for the reasons (95) given by the Judge below, the 
rule for a new trial should be discharged.

Judgment affirmed. 

Approved. Skinner v. White, 18 N. C., 472; Wall v. Hoskins, 27 N. C., 177; 
Stokes v. Arey, 53 N. C., 66; McKee v. Wilson, 87 N. C., 300.

Additional Comments:
North Carolina Reports, Volume 11
Cases Argued and Determined in the SUPREME COURT of NORTH CAROLINA.
For December Term 1825 and June Term 1826 
by Francis L Hawks (Vol. IV)
Annotated by Walter Clark
Richmond: James E Goode Printing Company, Printers
1897

File at: http://files.usgwarchives.net/nc/moore/court/brady1434gwl.txt

This file has been created by a form at http://www.genrecords.org/ncfiles/

File size: 3.6 Kb