Citations
- 138 A.D. 487
Full opinion text
Rich, J.:
The only question presented. is whether the evidence is sufficient to justify a verdict for more than nominal damages. The learned trial court properly instructed the jury that, so far as actual damages were concerned, they could give only nominal damages; that there was no evidence in the case showing that the defendant had any knowledge of the plaintiff, or animosity against him, and, therefore, it could not have any personal ill-will against him. These instructions excluded from consideration any element which could form the basis for punitive damages, other than that of the defendant having published the libel wantonly, recklessly and with an utter disregard as to whether it was true or false, and this question, ■under the evidence as it stood, was properly submitted to the jury as a question of fact. (Crane v. Bennett, 177 N. Y. 106.)
Mr. John H. Sutpliin, a' former county clerk of Queens county and a prominent and well-known politician, died testate July 21, 1907, leaving a widow and two sons (of wdiom' the plaintiff is one) surviving him. By his will he devised all of his estate to his widow and named her as sole- executrix. A reporter of the Brooklyn Eagle interviewed Mr. Halstead Frost, Jr., one of the attorneys representing the widow in proceedings to probate the will, as the result of which that paper published on August 19, 1907, an article in which it was said: “Halstead Frost, Jr., of the above-named firm, when asked if Mr. Sutphiri’s estate was sufficient for the comfortable support of the widow, said: ‘ Yes, but she could be much better, cared for and would have a considerable fortune if we could collect all the unpaid notes we have in our possession, many of them for large amounts.’ 6Were they given by men able to pay?’ asked the Eagle reporter. ‘ Many of them were, and the men are of prominence in the community, also. They may be outlawed according to the statutes, but the moral obligation still exists.’ 6 Will they be publicly filed as among the assets of the deceased ? ’ was asked. 1 They may have to be filed and published,’ replied Mr. Frost.”
The following day, August twentieth, a reporter of the defendant read the article in the Brooklyn Eagle. Without interviewing Mr. Frost, or any other person, or making any investigation, and using the article as his basis and sole information, he prepared and forwarded from New Hyde Park a telegram to the defendant, purporting to set forth an interview with Mr. Frost, in which, among other things, he said : “ Halstead Frost, counsel of this place, who had charge of the will of the late John H. Sutphin, formerly County Clerk of Queens County, which was recently filed in the Surrogate’s Office at Jamaica, leaving an estate of but $2,100 to his wife Carrie, said to-day that it was an outrage that such a small amount should be left to the widow when according to numerous unpaid notes which he’held in his possession there should be a considerable fortune. Mr. Frost said that a great many of these notes were given by ¡persons now well up in financial circles in Manhattan and Queens Boroughs as well as political and that they should be paid.” By an error of the telegraph operator in transmitting the article, the letter “ p ” in “ persons ” (which I have underscored) was changed to “ h,” so that when the' article reached defendant the word “ persons ” read