Sturdivant v. Duke

• Decision Date: 02 October 1913
• Citation: 155 Ky. 100,159 S.W. 621
• Parties: STURDIVANT v. DUKE.
• Court: Kentucky Court of Appeals

159 S.W. 621

155 Ky. 100

STURDIVANT v. DUKE.

Court of Appeals of Kentucky.

October 2, 1913

Appeal from Circuit Court, Knott County.

Action by Ellen Sturdivant against Eva Duke. From an adverse judgment, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

Stewart & Bailey, of Hindman, for appellant.

Jason Ritchie, of Hindman, for appellee.

CLAY C.

Plaintiff Ellen Sturdivant, brought this action against defendant, Eva Duke, to recover damages for slander. A demurrer was sustained to her petition and the petition dismissed. From that judgment she appeals.

The petition is as follows: "The plaintiff, Ellen Sturdivant, states that she is the wife of James Sturdivant and resides at Hindman, Ky.; that on the 14th day of August 1912, the defendant, Eva Duke (the wife of J. W. Duke, a prominent physician of the town of Hindman), in Knott county in the presence of divers persons, falsely and maliciously spoke of and concerning this plaintiff these words, 'You are a black bitch, and I can prove it, and, if the whole thing has to, it will come,' thereby meaning that this plaintiff had committed the crime of adultery and leaving this impression on the parties in her hearing at the time she uttered said false statements to plaintiff's damage in the sum of $2,500. She states that the defendant is a resident of Knott county, Ky. Wherefore plaintiff prays judgment for $2,500 and for all proper relief."

It will be observed that the words alleged to have been spoken to the plaintiff by the defendant are, "You are a black bitch and I can prove it, and, if the whole thing has to, it will come," with the following innuendo: "Thereby meaning that this plaintiff had committed the crime of adultery and leaving this impression on the parties in her hearing at the time she uttered said false statements." It is well settled that an innuendo cannot extend the meaning of words beyond the 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. There is no colloquium in the petition, or preliminary averments of distinct substantive facts tending to show that the expression employed was used in any other than its customary sense. The question, therefore, comes to this: Are the words themselves actionable? As they were spoken of plaintiff in her individual...