Case Name: J. S. HARPER v. R. R. PINKSTON et als.
Court: Supreme Court of North Carolina
Jurisdiction: North Carolina
Decision Date: 1893-02
Citations: 112 N.C. 293
Docket Number: 
Parties: J. S. HARPER v. R. R. PINKSTON et als.
Judges: 
Reporter: North Carolina Reports
Volume: 112
Pages: 293–304

Head Matter:
J. S. HARPER v. R. R. PINKSTON et als.
Slander of Wife — Action by Husband — Dismissal of Action.
An action by a husband for slander of his wife, the wife not being a party and the complaint alleging no special damage to the husband, will be dismissed by this Court on motion of the defendant, or e.r mero motu, for failure of the complaint to state a cause of action.
Avery, J., concurring: (Discussion of Lord Denman’s Act, section 580 of The (hele, bill of discovery, matters of privilege, etc.).
Civil actior, brought to Fall Term, 1892, of Vaxck Superior Court, by J. S. Harper against R. R. Pinkston, J. A. Bridges, W. E. Gary and W. L. Cunninggim for alleged slander of plaintiff’s wife. The complaint was as follows:
“1. That plaintiff was, on the 28th day of November, A. D. 1883, legally married to his present wife, then Miss Lizzie A. Moss, and the marriage has continued until the present time.
“ 2. That on the-day of-r, 1891, the defendants, in said county of Vance, in the presence and hearing of divers good citizens of said county, as plaintiff is informed and believes, maliciously and wantonly spoke and published of and concerning plaintiff’s said wife substantially the following false, scandalous and defamatory words, to-wit: ‘Mrs. Lizzie Harper is guilty of immorality,’ or other words of like import and meaning, thereby meaning to charge, and did charge, and were understood bjT said good citizens and by-standers to charge, plaintiff’s said wife with incontinency, to plaintiff’s great damage, to-wit, ten thousand dollars.
“For a second cause of action, the plaintiff complains of the defendants, and alleges:
“1. That on the 28th day of November, A. D. 1883, plaintiff was legally married to Lizzie A. Moss in said county and State, and that said marriage has continued until the present time.
“ 2. That he is informed, and he believes his information to be true, that on or about the-day of-, A. D. 1891, in said county of Vance, in the presence and hearing of divers good citizens of said county, the defendants Pinkston, Gaiy and Bridges, through and by the defendant Cunninggim, the said Cunninggim concurring, wantonly, wickedly, falsely and maliciously spoke and published of and concerning plaintiff’s said wife substantially the following false, scandalous and defamatory words, to-wit: ‘We have investigated, and find that Mrs. Lizzie Harper (meaning plaintiff’s said wife) is guilty of immorality,’ or other words of like import and meaning, thereby charging and intending to charge, and wore understood by said good citizens and by-standers to charge, plaintiff’s said wife with incontinency, and that the defendants had found such charge to be true after a careful and impartial investigation of facts and circumstances derived from trustworthy and reliable sources, to plaintiff’s great damage, to-wit, ten thousand dollars.
“Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment for ten thousand dollars damages and for all costs of action.”
After complaint was filed the defendants were summoned for examination before the Clerk, under sections 584 — 585 of The Code, and on their appearance objected to the examination and moved to quash the proceedings, on the following grounds:
1. That in an action of slander or libel no examination can be had under sections 580 — 585 of The Code, since such sections do not apply in actions for torts.
2. That the complaint does not set forth a sufficient cause of action, in that the wife of the plaintiff is not a party plaintiff, and no slanderous words arc sufficiently charged to have been spoken or published of the plaintiff by defendants, and no special damage is.alleged b}r him, and that no definite and certain time is stated as to when the alleged words were spoken or published.
3. That the investigation alleged in said complaint was a church examination, under church discipline, in the matter of Mrs. Lizzie Harper, then a member of the M. E. Church, ¡South, of which said church defendants were also members, and all matters pertaining to such investigation are privileged.
4. That in said action there is a misjoinder of parties defendant, in that there cannot be a joinder of- defendants in an action of slander.
5. That the innuendo is not supported by the language charged.
The Court sustained objections one and three and refused to proceed with the examination, and plaintiff appealed to Judge Connor, who overruled the Clerk’s order, and directed him to proceed with the examination.
On February 3, 1893, the parties were reconvened and defendants renewed their objections, which were entered by the Clerk, and all questions propounded to the witness were objected to. Upon the examination, one of the defendants, Rev. W. L. Cunninggim, was asked whether Barnes and Jordan testified (before the church committee) to acts of criminal intercourse with plaintiff’s wife. The defendants objected to the question upon the ground that it was an inquiry into their defence to the action, and upon grounds before stated. The objection was overruled, and defendants appealed to Judge Shuford. His Honor dismissed-the appeal, holding that it was the duty of the Clerk to write down the questions and answers, except privileged ques tions, and certify the same to the Superior Court. From this ruling the defendants appealed.
Messrs. II. T. Watkins, Pittman & Shaw and Edwards & Wortham, for plaintiff.
Messrs. It. 0. Burton and W. R. Henry, for defendants (appellants).

Opinion:
Clark, J.:
The wife, who alone is charged to have been slandered, is not a party to the action. There being no special damage alleged as to the husband, who is the sole plaintiff, the complaint fails to state a canse of action. Newell on Defamation, 365, 1849; Odger's Slander and Libel, 313, 346; Polkard's Starkio on Slander, 332; The Code, §177. The words were not used in regard to the husband, and his reputation certainly has not been assailed. He must aver special damage. The action should, therefore, be dismissed on the motion made here by the defendant. Indeed, it might have been done ex mero motú by this Court. Rule 27 of Supreme Court; Hagins v. Railroad, 106 N. C., 537; Gordon v. Sanderson, 83 N. C., 1.
This makes it unnecessary to consider the interesting questions raised on the argument. There is no case óf which a Court can take cognizance.
Action Dismissed.