Fox v. Wilson, 48 N.C. 485, 3 Jones 485 (1856)

Aug. 1856 · Supreme Court of North Carolina
48 N.C. 485, 3 Jones 485
ALEXANDER FOX vs. JOSEPH WILSON

ALEXANDER FOX vs. JOSEPH WILSON.

To say of actionable words spoken, which are barred by the statute, “ I never denied speaking those words, and I will stand up to them,” is not a repetition of the charge, and though said within six months before bringing the suit, it will not support the action of slander.

Action of slander, tried before his Honor, Judge Manly, at the Pall Term, 1855, of Buncombe Superior Court. Pleas,, general issue, statute limitations.

The words charged to have been spoken by the defendant were in relation to the taking of a horse which had belonged to the plaintiff, which had been levied on by an officer and left in the custody of the defendant, and which the plaintiff had secretly taken from out of his possession. The defendant, *486in speaking of this transaction to one Roberts, called it stealing. This conversation was more than six months before the suit was brought. But afterwards, within the time prescribed by the statute, on being informed by Roberts that the plaintiff threatened to sue him for slander if he could get evidence enough, the defendant said in reply, that he had never denied what he had said to Roberts, and that he would “ stand up to it.”

The Court was of opinion that the words to Roberts were not actionable, and if they were, the subsequent conversation was not a repetition of them. In submission to this opinion, the plaintiff took a nonsuit and appealed.

W. W. Woodfim, and J. W. Woodjm, for the plaintiff.

Baxter, for the defendant.

Battle, J.

Ve agree with his Honor that what the defendant said to the witness Roberts, within six months before the commencement of the action, was not a repetition of the charge which he had previously made to the same witness against the plaintiff It was nothing more than an acknowledgment of the fact that he had spoken the words on a former occasion; and that speaking having been more than six months before the suit was brought, the statute of limitations was a bar to it.

This makes it unnecessary for us to decide whether the words were actionable, and upon that question, therefore, we do not express an opinion.

Per Curiam.

Judgment affirmed.