Citations
- 81 A.D. 153
Full opinion text
Ingraham, J.:
There are two causes of action alleged in the complaint, which set forth two separate libels alleged to have: been published in the' Evening Post, a daily newspaper published in the city of Hew York. As a first cause of action, the plaintiff alleges that lie was a resident of the city of Hew York, engaged in the business of importing, manufacturing and selling men’s furnishing goods, and was a member and officer of a voluntary association known as theMerchants and Manufacturers’ Board of Trade; ” that on the 9th day of February, 1899, the Evening Post Publishing'Cómpany published in the Evening Post two letters which purported to be written by correspondents, addressed to the editor of the Evening Post, one dated “Washington, D. C., February 8th,” and signed “Republican,” and one dated “ Philadelphia, February 8th,” and signed “E. S.B.”
It is not alleged that these two letters were published on the same sheet or the same column or in immediate proximity to each other-They do not upon their face relate to the same class of people or to the same subject-matter. The first letter is as follows:
“Every Few Yorker ought to paste up the names of those miserable tradespeople you mention * * * etc., and refuse to deal with them. It is disgraceful that to enable such people to overcharge for their wares, the residents of the whole United States should be annoyed. They ought to be hung.
“ Washington, D. C., February 8th. REPUBLICAF.”
This letter, standing alone, could not be construed to be a libel upon anybody. Fo name is mentioned ; no class is mentioned, and proof of no extraneous facts could make it applicable to the plaintiff or to any particular individual. This statement is mot applied to the members of the Merchants and Manufacturers’ Board of Trade, to which the second communication relates, and no connection between the two publications is alleged, except they were published in the same issue of the paper. There is no apparent connection between these two letters, and nothing to show that they had any relation to each other. Certainly, the publication of this one letter, disconnected with any statément in the paper that it applied to any particular individual, would not, by simply alleging that it was published of and concerning him, give such an individual a right of action.
The second letter is as follows:
“ To the Editor of the Evening Post:
“ Sir.— Could I have a copy of the list of ‘ Merchants and Manufacturers’ spoken of in the Evening Post of the 7th under the Baggage Folly ? ’
“ Philadelphia, February 8¿/t.” . E. S. B.”
The statement in the Evening Post of February seventh to which reference is made is not pleaded, nor is it alleged that such statement charged the persons there mentioned with any offense which would sustain an action for libel. So far as appears from the publication, the “Merchants and Manufacturers” spoken of on the seventh under the “ Baggage Folly ’’ were praised for their action. There is nothing to indicate how the persons were spoken of, or that they were charged with any offense or reprehensible conduct. The Evening Post's comment on this letter is as follows:
“(We are printing the list in the form of a neat circular which we shall be glad to send on application. In the meantime we publish it again.—Ed. Evening Post).
“Merchants and-Manufacturers’