¶1 The testimony of Captain Williams and Mr. Jones as to their understanding or interpretation of the alleged libelous article was incompetent and should have been excluded. Trust Co. v. Cash Store, 193 N. C., 122, 136 S. E., 289; Marks v. Cotton Mills, 135 N. C., 289, 47 S. E., 432. Even if the questions propounded were proper (which may be doubted, as the language of the article seems clear, Pitts v. Pace, 52 N. C., 558), the answers were not responsive to the questions, and they violate the rule against lay witnesses invading the province of the jury. Stanley v. Lumber Co., 184 N. C., 302, 114 S. E., 385; Marshall v. Tel. Co., 181 N. C., 292, 106 S. E., 818. Whether the defendant was actuated by malice or ill will was one of the issues in the case. Potts v. Ins. Co., 206 N. C., 257, 174 S. E., 123; Stevenson v. Northington, 204 N. C., 690, 169 S. E., 622. The motions to strike should have been allowed. Denton v. Milling Co., 205 N. C., 77, 170 S. E., 107.
¶2 New trial.