Spears v. McCoy

• Decision Date: 30 September 1913
• Citation: 159 S.W. 610,155 Ky. 1
• Parties: SPEARS v. McCOY.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

159 S.W. 610

155 Ky. 1

SPEARS v. McCOY.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

September 30, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Pike County.

Action by Rediford Spears against Mont McCoy. From a judgment dismissing the petition, plaintiff appeals. Reversed and remanded.

Childers & Childers, of Pikeville, for appellant.

J. S Cline, of Pikeville, for appellee.

CLAY C.

Plaintiff Rediford Spears, brought this action against Mont McCoy to recover damages for slander. A demurrer was sustained to the petition, and the petition dismissed. Plaintiff appeals.

The petition is as follows: "The plaintiff, Rediford Spears states that he is a teacher of common schools by profession in Pike county, Ky. which county is his home and in which county he now resides; that he holds a first-class certificate to teach in the common schools of said county and has been a teacher for the last 10 years. He states that the defendant, Mont McCoy, in Pike county, Ky. on the ___ day of July, 1912, and in the presence and hearing of different and divers persons, spoke of plaintiff falsely and maliciously, wrongfully, and unlawfully these words, to wit: 'I do not want such a teacher as Rediford Spears because he is all the time courting the girls and did court them last year in the school; that he would dismiss the boys last year in school and keep the girls in and give them candy and court them'--meaning thereby that the plaintiff who taught in subdistrict No. 124, Pike county, Ky. last year, had kept the girls who were his students in after the boys had been dismissed and had had carnal sexual intercourse with them; that plaintiff is now employed to teach in said subdistrict for the coming school year; that he makes his living by teaching in the common schools of Pike county; that said language, which is false and untrue, has greatly injured his reputation as a teacher and has caused him to suffer great mental anguish and humiliation and has greatly injured his character, to his great damage in the full and just sum of $10,000. Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment against the defendant for the sum of $10,000 for costs and all proper relief."

While there is an attempt on the part of plaintiff to give a very strained construction to the words which it is alleged that the defendant spoke of him, it is well settled that an innuendo cannot extend the meaning of words beyond their natural import. It is only explanatory of some matter already expressed. It may show the application but cannot add to or enlarge or change the sense of the words. Watson v. Hampton, 2 Bibb, 319; Moore v. Johnson, 147 Ky. 584, 144 S.W. 765.

The question, therefore, turns on whether or not the words are actionable per se. Words are slanderous or actionable per se only in cases where they are falsely spoken and (1) impute the commission of a crime involving moral turpitude, for which the party might be indicted and punished; or (2) impute an infectious disease likely to exclude him from society; or (3) impute unfitness to perform the duties of an...