Case Name: Earl V. PILKENTON, Appellant, v. KINGSPORT PUBLISHING CORPORATION, Appellee
Court: United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit
Jurisdiction: United States
Decision Date: 1968-06-04
Citations: 395 F.2d 989
Docket Number: No. 11683
Parties: Earl V. PILKENTON, Appellant, v. KINGSPORT PUBLISHING CORPORATION, Appellee.
Judges: 
Reporter: Federal Reporter 2d Series
Volume: 395
Pages: 989–990

Head Matter:
Earl V. PILKENTON, Appellant, v. KINGSPORT PUBLISHING CORPORATION, Appellee.
No. 11683.
United States Court of Appeals Fourth Circuit.
Argued Feb. 8, 1968.
Decided June 4, 1968.
Carl E. McAfee, Norton, Va., for appellant.
Jackson S. White, Jr., Abingdon, Va. (Ernest F. Smith and F. Allen Kelly, Kingsport, Tenn., Penn, Stuart & Miller, Abingdon, Va., and Hunter, Smith, Davis, Norris, Waddey & Treadway, Kingsport, Tenn., on brief), for appellee.
Before SOBELOFF, WINTER and CRAVEN, Circuit Judges.

Opinion:
PER CURIAM:
This appeal is from a summary judgment for defendant in a suit for alleged defamation by a newspaper article which described a raid on a barn, the recovery of a quantity of stolen merchandise, and plaintiff's arrest on a charge of receiving and possessing stolen property.
Our examination of the record discloses some procedural defects in the entry of judgment. We are satisfied, however, that plaintiff was not prejudiced thereby; and in oral argument, plaintiff stated his willingness to have us proceed to the merits of the appeal, rather than to decide it on procedural grounds.
Proceeding, therefore, to the merits, we conclude from our study of the record that the district judge correctly determined that in its publication "defendant merely carried an accurate account of a matter of public interest and concern" and that "[djefendant report ed what had actually taken place." For this reason, the entry of judgment for defendant was proper.
Affirmed.