## Facts

- A merchant’s store was broken into and goods were stolen.
- A boy aged fourteen to fifteen received an anonymous typewritten letter in his rural mailbox accusing him of stealing from the merchant’s store.
- The letter threatened criminal prosecution and imprisonment unless the goods were returned, and instructed the boy to return them secretly by dropping them through a hole in a shed door.
- The boy showed the letter to his brother and one other person; the brother then showed it to the boy’s father.
- The father confronted the merchant, who denied writing the letter but admitted he was “knowing to it.”
- A typewriting expert compared the anonymous letter with a letter admittedly written on the merchant’s typewriter and opined—based on similarities in type characteristics, punctuation, line spacing, and letter forms—that both were written on the same machine.

## Issues

1. Whether expert testimony comparing the typewriting of an anonymous defamatory letter to known writing from the defendant’s typewriter was admissible and sufficient, with other evidence, to submit responsibility for the letter to the jury.
2. Whether there was actionable publication of a defamatory letter when it was addressed only to the plaintiff, but the plaintiff later disclosed it to family members and others.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of North Carolina affirmed the judgment for the plaintiff.
- The trial court properly denied the defendant’s motion for nonsuit on the ground of no publication.
- The typewriting-comparison expert testimony was properly admitted and, with other circumstances, supported submitting authorship/responsibility to the jury.
- Publication was supported because the defendant had reason to expect that a boy threatened with prosecution would show the letter to relatives or others for advice or assistance; the subsequent disclosure was attributable to the defendant.

## Legal Principles

- A written statement that reflects on another’s character and is published without lawful justification may be libel; written accusations may be libel per se even when comparable spoken words might require proof of special damages.
- Libel requires communication of the defamatory matter to someone other than the person defamed, but publication may be satisfied if the defendant either (a) communicates it to any third person, or (b) sends it under circumstances where the defendant must have intended, or had reason to suppose, the recipient would disclose it, and the complained-of harm follows from that disclosure.
- When a defamatory letter is sent to a minor and contains threats of prosecution, disclosure to close relatives may be treated as a natural and probable consequence rather than a purely independent voluntary act breaking causation.
- Expert opinion testimony comparing typewriting characteristics between an anonymous document and known writing from the defendant’s machine is competent evidence tending to show responsibility for the letter.

## Conclusion

The court upheld a libel verdict based on an anonymous threatening letter accusing a minor of theft, ruling that publication can be established when the sender should anticipate the recipient will reveal the letter to others, and approving expert typewriter-comparison evidence to link the defendant to the communication.


Hedgepeth v. Coleman, 183 N.C. 309, 111 S.E. 517 (1922)