Sharp v. Bowlar

• Decision Date: 10 March 1898
• Citation: 103 Ky. 282,45 S.W. 90
• Parties: SHARP v. BOWLAR.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

45 S.W. 90

103 Ky. 282

SHARP v. BOWLAR.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

March 10, 1898

Appeal from circuit court, Madison county.

"To be officially reported."

Action by Mattie Bowlar, by her next friend, against D. F. Sharp. There was judgment for plaintiff, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.

J. A Sullivan and W. S. Moberly, for appellant.

W. B Smith and J. Talbott Jackson, for appellee.

LEWIS C.J.

Mattie Bowlar, an infant, suing by her next friend and stepfather Hayden Bowlar, brought this action for damages against D. F Sharp for the alleged false and malicious speaking, in the presence and hearing of divers persons, these words "Mattie Bowlar is a thief. She stole a box of whitening, and a white silk handkerchief, and twelve yards of fine lace, from me." Appellant, in the first paragraph of his answer, denies that he spoke of the plaintiff the words set out in the petition. In the second paragraph he says that appellee was a servant at his house, and that he did state he and his wife missed some whitening, two silk handkerchiefs, a pair of black yarn stockings, about seven yards of lace, two aprons, and two pieces of ribbon, and that the plaintiff had returned, or caused to be returned, the two aprons, one silk handkerchief, the two pieces of ribbon, and some pictures; that said statement was true, but was spoken without malice, or intention or desire to injure the reputation of the plaintiff; that he made said statement to Hayden Bowlar and others, upon inquiry made of him by said Bowlar and others as to the conduct of said Mattie Bowlar while she was employed at his house as servant, and that said statement by him was confidential and privileged, and he honestly believed said statement was true at the time he made it. As bearing on the questions whether the allegations of the petition were supported by the evidence, and whether statements made by appellant were confidential and privileged, and also as to the rulings of the court on the instructions, it is proper to set out substantially the testimony of Hayden Bowlar, to whom, as he testifies, the slanderous words were spoken. It is as follows: "After Mattie Bowlar had returned home for the Christmas holidays from appellant's house, myself, Mattie Bowlar, and members of my family had heard rumors concerning the conduct of Mattie while at his house, and I went for Mattie, and at her request, to see appellant about these rumors. I said to him: 'I understand that there is a rumor in the neighborhood that Mattie Bowlar has stolen some things from your family, and I have come to ask you, and to find out about it.' In response to my question, he said: 'I have not been talking or saying anything about Mattie Bowlar myself, but my wife and children said to me that she stole two aprons and about seven yards of lace, a pair of hose, two napkins, a box of fine face powder, and a little money, and a few other things have been missed; and she returned the two aprons, one at a time.' I asked him if he now said that she stole the articles, and he replied: 'The articles were missing, and the two aprons were returned, and I could call it stealing or not.' He also said in the conversation, after I had asked him about it, that these were the facts; and further said, 'To be plain with you, she stole the articles."' Another witness was present, and heard a part of the conversation, but did not hear the words, "To be plain with you, she stole the articles." Two other witnesses testified substantially that on different occasions, upon being asked by them about the rumor in the neighborhood concerning the conduct of Mattie Bowlar while at his house, appellant stated that his family had missed some little things,--aprons, lace, hose, and so on,-- and "Mattie Bowlar had the only chance of...