Case Name: ABNER C. McDOWELL v. WILLIAM BOWLES
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1860-12
Citations: 8 Jones 184
Docket Number: 
Parties: ABNER C. McDOWELL v. WILLIAM BOWLES.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 53
Pages: 184–185

Head Matter:
ABNER C. McDOWELL v. WILLIAM BOWLES.
It is not actionable, per se, to charge a white man with being a free negro; and it does not alter the case, that such man was a minister of the gospel.
This was an action on the case for slander, tried before Dick, J., at the last Fall Term of Surry Superior Court.
The plaintiff declared that he was a clear blooded white man, and a regular licensed minister of the Baptist Church ; that the defendant said of him at a constable’s election, where plaintiff came forward to vote, that he (plaintiff) had no right to vote ; that he (plaintiff) was a free negro, and said, “if you let free negroes vote, here, let Zach. "Warden (who is a free negro) vote also.” There was no special damage laid or proved.
The defendant moved to nonsuit plaintiff, upon the ground, that the words alleged to have been spoken, were not actionable. His Honor being of that opinion, ordered a nonsuit, from which plaintiff appealed.
Orumpler, for the plaintiff.
Boyden, for the defendant.

Opinion:
Manly, J.
We are not aware of any class of defamatory words, which are held to be actionable, that would embrace the language complained of in this case. The three classes most usually found in elementary books, are :
1. Words that impute a crime or a misdemeanor, punishable by an infamous penalty.
2. Words that impute an contagious disease, by which the party impugned would be excluded from society.
8. W ords derogatory to one in respect to his office, profession or calling.
The.case before us, is not embraced in any of these classes.
It is obviously not in the first. It is not in the second, for the reason that this class has been strictly confined to the imputation of certain diseases of a loathsome or pestilential nature. It is not in the third, because the offensive language is not spoken of the plaintiff in respect to his calling, which is indispensable to the actionable character of words in that class. It is stated in the declaration, that the plaintiff was a minister of the gospel. Conceding this to be one of the callings which falls within the rule of law in respect to slander, (which is by no means certain) yet, its sacred character will not make language actionable, which would not be so, if used of a private person, unless such language be of and concerning him in his capacity of minister.
Thus stands the law, as we conceive, in respect to words alleged to be actionable of themselves; with respect to all other disparaging words, outside of the limitation prescribed, special damage must be alleged and proved.
Concurring with the Court below, that the words are not subject to an action without an allegation and proof of special damage, the judgment of nonsuit, in the Court below, is affirmed.
Per Curiam,
Judgment affirmed.