Baugh v. Moore

• Decision Date: 18 March 1914
• Citation: 89 A. 939,122 Md. 149
• Parties: BAUGH v. MOORE.
• Court: Maryland Court of Appeals

89 A. 939

122 Md. 149

BAUGH v. MOORE.

Court of Appeals of Maryland

March 18, 1914

On motion for reargument. Motion overruled.

STOCKBRIDGE, J.

A motion for reargument having been made in this case, the record, briefs, and motion have been examined with care. In the opinion heretofore filed it was said: " If it be conceded that the words as interpreted by the innuendo are actionable, the question whether the innuendo is good *** still remains a matter of law for the court. *** Taking the language as used in the declaration, together with the admissions necessarily made by the demurrer, and the allegation that the plaintiff had been injured thereby, the demurrer was properly overruled." The opinion, therefore, proceeded upon the theory of a concession of the actionable character of the language. The motion filed raises, even more sharply than the original briefs, the actionable nature of the language as set forth in the declaration. The alleged slanderous words were fully set forth in the opinion filed in this case, and need not be again repeated, nor is it necessary to again quote from the cases as to what does and what does not constitute slanderous language for which an action will lie. That has been fully settled in this state by such cases as Brinsfield v. Howeth, 107 Md. 278, 68 A. 566, 24 L. R. A. (N. S.) 583, and Weeks v. News Pub. Co., 117 Md. 126, 83 A. 162. If the language used in the letter of Mr. Baugh to the appellee is examined in the light of these cases, and applying the rule laid down in Peterson v. Sentman. 37 Md. 140, 11 Am. Rep. 534, it cannot fairly be said that the language warrants the meaning sought to be given to it in the innuendo, and if the case had been presented to this court solely upon the demurrer, we would have had to hold that the demurrer to the declaration should have been sustained. As this conclusion in no way affects the result as announced in the opinion heretofore filed, the motion for reargument will be overruled.

Motion overruled.