State v. Neese, 4 N.C. 270, 1 Taylor 270 (1818)

Jan. 1818 · Supreme Court of North Carolina

4 N.C. 270, 1 Taylor 270

STATE against NEESE.

If the libe!-lous matter in a publica-direct but only libellous by allusion or refevtnc ¿the stood'must be stated by and must be explanatory^ imiendoes.

The Defendant was found guilty by tVie jury of a libel* the indictment for which was as follows : l\- '

-The Jurors fen the State; iipbti thefe oath present, that <t Sampson Néeseí late of, the county of Orange, farmer; r J ⅛ being a person rtf ⅛« envious,, et'il; and wicked mind, and most malicious disposition, and Wickedly, riaalicious-i ]y and unlawfully minding, Contriving arid intending aS much as in him lay tb injure, oppress and dggnfcve dhd ydify the good name, fame, credit and reputation of one Elizabeth B. Holt, spinster, & good, worthy* virtuous girl, and to bring her into great contempt, ridicule and disgrace ; after the first day of August* in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and seventeen, (to wit) on the tenth day of August in the same year, with force and arms in the county aforesaid, of his great hatred, malice and ill will towards the said Eli±abetll B. Holt, wickedly, maliciously and unlawfully did write and cause to be written a certain scandalous, malicious and defamatory libel of and concerning the said Elizabeth B. Holt, which said false, scandalous, malicious and defama-to?}- libel is according .to the tenor following, to wit. “ Notice to all Persons Jentlemen I have taken it upon pay self to inform y o of A SircumstSmce thatpccird Latfcrly between 'John Holts & Benjamin Whitbys as I was going .on I discbvfered Á mán aiad ivofean along tlae field side and after standing a while I discovered that on was a Negro Seeing that they were so busily engaged I lit of and made toward them Í got within About twenty yards of themvand Behold it was Betsey Holt the Daughter of Miss Holts (meaning the said Elizabeth B. Holt) and a Negro boy I Beleafe belonging to Mr. IVhid bey I then Returned to nay Beast, Jentlemen Í assert this for the fact thd it is a Sireumstance that will evidently show for itself ⅛ a Coming time tho ther is A young man over the Alamance that would Witness this case he ^as Present with mea and he Beged mea to let no person for the sak of the Best of the family he having a great Respect for some of them t Beleafe formerly mófe so for hur than the Rest-—I therefore will not assign my name Perhaps some of yo will say every person has their enemays and enmity speaks the trooth of no Person but this Suf-eumstance will show for itself áiid if not I am able to make it appeare” Which said scandalous, malicióuá and defamatory libel he the said Sampson Neese afterwards* to wit, on the same day and year aforesaid, on a tree on the side of the Public Road leading from Trolinger’s Bridge to Hillsborough, in the county aforesaid j wickedly, maliciously and unlawfully did publish, nail up and fasten, to the great damage, disgrace, scandal and injury of the said ílizabeth B. Holt, to the evil and pernicious example of all other in the like case offending, and against the peace and dignity of the State*

Seawell, j.

The Question which arises in this cáse Is; whether the libel stated in the indictment constitutes per se a libel ? If it does, it being charged to be written of and concerning Elizabeth Holt, by the Defendant, the State would be entitled to Judgment; and it seems to me a very plain case*

Wherever the indictment charges the Defendant with the writing or publishing of a libel of and concerning another, and the libel when set forth of itself contains clear, Unambiguous, libellous matter—that is, something representing the person of whom written, in a disgraceful or ridiculous manner, all other allegations, would be useless and cumbersome verbiage : But if the matter be only by way of allusion, or reference, or ironical, then,although the Whole world might put the same construction upon itj yet as this construction is by understanding something not expressed, this fact or thing so understood,, must be stated in the indictment by way of introduction, and must be P°*nted at by explanatory inuendoes. The indictment in the present case contains nothing introductory by way of informing ns^what it was the Defendant intended should be understood that Elizabeth Holt had been guilty of, and consequently no inuendo if used could enlarge or in any manner qualify the import of the words of the libel. The libel itself represents that Elizabeth Holt was seen bu ily engaged with a negro boy ; these, words of themselves import no criminality, nor do they represent Elizabeth Holt in a ridiculous light, except by understanding them to mean something not expressed—and though the whole world might understand the writing to mean the same thing, yet before the Defendant can be punished for the imputation itnplied, the Jury must say that such was his meaning— when they have said so, then the Court judicially knows it, and can proceed to i Tu t the punishment he so richly deserves ; but the Jury cannot take cognizance that such Was the party’s meaning unless it be averred so upon the record. This doctrine is fully stated by Chief Justice De Grey in the King v. Horne.

I confess I had no doubt upon this case at the trial, as I then expressed, and only brought it to this Court in deference to the opinion of the Solicitor Generál. There must be Judgment for the Defendant.