This appeal is from order of the court dismissing the action after having sustained demurrer to petition and amended petition. The petition alleged that Elmer C. Roberts “in the presence of divers persons falsely and maliciously spoke of and concerning the plaintiff, these words, ‘Clifford Elkins swore a lie and I am going to indict him for it,’ thereby meaning thаt the plaintiff had committed the crime of false swearing, a felony to plaintiff’s damаge in the sum of five thousand ($5000.00) dollars.”
In amended petition it was alleged: “The plaintiff, befоre answer, amends his petition, and for amendment thereto says that the' false and mаlicious words set out in his petition were spoken and published by the defendant in the presence and hearing of divers persons. He says that in addition to the allegation оf his original petition and by reason of the speaking and publishing of said false and maliсious words that he has suffered great mental pain and anguish and has been greatly humiliated, disgraced and mortified by reason thereof.”
Appellant is here insisting that a' cause of action was. stated and the court erred in sustaining the demurrer and dismissing the action.
It is nоt always'easy to determine when an accusation of false swearing has been made sufficiently clear to warrant action for defamation.
In considering the question presented we must keep in mind that there are two classes of actionable words: those slanderous per se, which are presumed by law actually and neсessarily to damage the person about whom they are spoken, and those сlassified as actionable per quod, which on their face are not actiоnable per se' but only in consequence of extrinsic facts show the damages whiсh resulted to the slandered party.
In order to render a charge of false sweаring actionable per se it must ordinarily appear that there was some pеnd7 ing proceeding wherein a party could have been sworn by someone having рower to administer the oath. An assertion that one has sworn a lie when appliеd to extraju-i dicial proceedings .is not ordinarily actionable. The courts are not in entire agreement on this question. Some hold that the assertion that one has sworn falsely, with the added threat Of indictment, is sufficiently. definite.
However', in Kentucky in the early cаse of Watson v. Hampton,
In Gastineau v. McCoy,
• Appellant contends that the addition of the explanatory statement thereby'meaning that the plaintiff had committed the crime of false swearing” was sufficient to mеet-this test
*996
In Smith v. Mustain,
It is next insisted that, even though the original petition should be held insufficient tо show the words to have been slanderous per se, the amended petition ftilly qualifies and meets the test for an action based upon uttered words classified as actionable per quod. The amended petition does not show any damage resulting from the statement made. There is merely the allegation that' the plaintiff has 'suffered grеat mental pain and has been humiliated, disgraced and mortified. He then prays as in his original petition, which was- for general damages, had the words been actionablе per se. In the amended petition no circumstancs or extrinsic facts aré pleaded which show damages in any amount resulting .from the uttered words.
The judgment is affirmed.