Lewis v. . Carr
101 S.E. 97
N.C.
1919
Check Treatment
Claes:, C. J.

The defendant Carr, owner and publisher of “The Mountaineer and Avery Herald,” at Newland, N. C., published an article therein which charged that the county superintendent of education had no right to pay out of the county school funds the expenses of the chairman of the county board of education to the teachers’ assembly at Charlotte. The plaintiff, who was chairman of the county board of education, called upon the defendant Carr to publish his proofs, and he thereupon printed an affidavit by the defendants Guy and Baird, cashier and assistant cashier of the Avery County Bank, sworn to before a notary public, that the bank had paid a voucher to the plaintiff signed by him as chairman of the board of education and by the superintendent of public instruction of the county, which voucher stated on its face that it was *580 to pay tbe expenses of tbe plaintiff for tbe trip to tbe educational meeting at Charlotte in November, 1917.

At tbe trial tbe plaintiff offered evidence of tbe publication of tbe affidavit in tbe paper; tbat no sucb voucher bad ever been issued or authorized to be issued, or bad been paid by tbe bank, and also put in evidence tbe monthly statements of tbe bank, with tbe accompanying vouchers issued by tbe county board of education, and paid by the’ bank, and stubs of all vouchers issued by tbe board, which showed no suck voucher.

Tbe exhibition of tbe affidavit to tbe notary public and to Carr was a. publication by tbe defendants Guy and Baird, Logan v. Hodges, 146 N. C., 38; Brown v. Lumber Co., 167 N. C., 13, and tbe preparation and banding the article to Carr to be printed in tbe paper was evidence of tbe purpose and intent tbat it should be circulated. Tbe article and affidavit in effect charged tbe defendant with tbe conversion to bis own use of tbe funds of tbe county without authority of law. If this was not a direct charge of embezzlement it was at least an allegation of a gross breach of official duty, misconduct, ignorance and incompetence of tbe plaintiff as chairman of tbe board of education of Avery, in issuing and signing a voucher payable to bis own order out of tbe public school funds of tbe county, collecting tbe voucher and converting tbe funds to bis own use in violation of law. Osborne v. Leach, 135 N. C., 630.

Tbe publication was not absolutely privileged, for it was not in tbe performance of public service, in which case, notwithstanding proof of tbe falsity of tbe charge, and actual malice, an action cannot be maintained thereon. It was qualifiedly privileged, because, though tbe defendant was under no legal obligation to act, it was a publication required by tbe public good if tbe charge were true. In cases of qualified privilege tbe falsehood of tbe charge will not of itself be sufficient to establish malice, for there is a presumption tbat tbe publication was made bona, fide. Fields v. Bynum, 156 N. C., 416; Gattis v. Kilgo, 140 N. C., 106; Ramsey v. Cheek, 109 N. C., 270.

But in cases of qualified privilege, though tbe falsity of tbe charge (taking tbe evidence for tbe plaintiff to be true, as we must on a nonsuit) would not of itself prove malice, there was evidence sufficient to go to tbe jury of malice from tbe fact tbat tbe defendants Guy and Baird bad paid these vouchers, and they knew, or should have known, tbat the-charge was false. Tbe school vouchers were public records, and all three defendants could have ascertained tbe falsity of tbe charge by tbe means of information in their power. They published an affidavit in regard to tbe discharge of bis duty by a public officer, which was tantamount to tbe charge of embezzlement. Osborne v. Leach, 135 N. C., 630. Rev., 4141, provides tbat tbe county superintendent shall attend the; *581 animal meetings of the State association of county superintendents, and that the county board of education of his county shall pay out of the county school funds his traveling expenses and board. As to the county board of education, they are not required to attend, and their only allowance is $2 per day and mileage. Eev., 2786. If the charge was not one of embezzlement, it was a charge of a breach of official duty, misconduct, and conversion of public funds. Osborne v. Leach, supra; Ivie v. King, 167 N. C., 177. Whether embezzlement was intended to be charged was a question for the jury. Beck v. Bank, 161 N. C., 203.

The defendants rely upon Rice v. McAdams, 149 N. C., 29, where two parties were charged jointly with uttering different slanderous words. Here all three united in the same libelous words, two preparing the affidavit and handing it to the third for publication. There was no objection for misjoinder taken either by answer or demurrer. Rev., 474 ( 5) ; Eev., 476, 478. In that case there was no common purpose or design shown, and the Court said the action should have been divided, but that it would be error to dismiss it. In this case there was common purpose and action, and no ground to divide the action or dismiss it.

The judgment of nonsuit must be

Eeversed.