Cobb v. Tinsley

• Decision Date: 23 June 1922
• Citation: 195 Ky. 781,243 S.W. 1009
• Parties: COBB v. TINSLEY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

243 S.W. 1009

195 Ky. 781

COBB v. TINSLEY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

June 23, 1922

Rehearing Denied Oct. 17, 1922.

Appeal from Circuit Court, Graves County.

Action by Rubye Tinsley, by her next friend, against Gilbert Cobb. Judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Reversed.

J. C Speight, of Mayfield, for appellant.

Hester & Hester, of Mayfield, for appellee.

SAMPSON J.

This appeal is from a judgment of the Graves circuit court in favor of Rubye Tinsley, who sued by her father, as next friend, against Gilbert Cobb, in which she was awarded the sum of $1,250 damages for slander alleged to have been uttered by Cobb. Leslie Miller, generally called Leck, was a young man about 20 years of age who kept company with and was regarded as the sweetheart of appellee, Rubye Tinsley. The young lady, as is admitted in the amended petition, was afflicted with bladder and kidney trouble to such an extent that she frequently wet the bed. The petition charges that on one occasion shortly before the institution of the suit by Miss Tinsley Cobb said to Leck, her sweetheart, and some other persons, "I feel sorry for Leck; some of these cold mornings he will find himself on the south side of these logs to dry." Upon being asked what he meant, he answered, "I know by experience," and rode away laughing. Later it is alleged in the petition that Cobb said of and concerning the plaintiff, "Will, you go over and ask Leck Miller whether his waterproof suit has come yet," and at the same time said, "Leck has ordered him a waterproof suit to keep Rubye (meaning the plaintiff) from wetting on him." In the petition it is averred that the words so spoken were false and slanderous, and said by the defendant for the malicious purpose to and did bring her good name and fame into disrepute. It is futher alleged in the same pleading that the defendant, Cobb, intended to convey the idea and to charge by the words spoken that Rubye Tinsley, the plaintiff, had been having sexual intercourse with said Miller and wet on him.

It is sufficiently proven that appellant, Cobb, uttered in substance the words alleged in the petition, but at the same time uttered other words which in part at least explained what he meant. The words set forth in the petition unconnected with all the words of the conversation had between Cobb and the persons to whom it is alleged he spoke the slanderous words, are very much harsher and more...