76 N.Y.S. 197 | N.Y. App. Div. | 1902
Lead Opinion
The defendant demurred to the complaint herein, which is framed as. one in an action to recover damages for an alleged libel, and the demurrer was overruled. It was interposed on the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, the specific claimed defect being that the publication of which the plaintiff coni plains related to him as a public officer; that at the time of the publication he had ceased to be such public officer; that the matter complained of was not libelous per se, and that the complaint was insufficient for the want of an allegation of special damage.
The scheme of the complaint is not altogether such as the learned' counsel for the defendant seems to consider it. The plaintiff avers that at the times mentioned in the complaint and for thirty years previous thereto he had been, and still was, an attorney and counselor at law, regularly engaged in the practice of his profession as a means of livelihood, in the city of New York, and that throughout that time his character and professional standing were good in the community wherein he practiced his profession ; that for more than six years, to wit, between the 4th of May, 1895, and the 19th day of June, 1901, he was counsel for the Treasury Department of the United States before the Board of United States General Appraisers in the city of New York ; that .on the 3d of July, 1901, the defendant, a corporation publishing a newspaper in the city of New York, printed and published an article on the editorial page of its newspaper, referring to and concerning the plaintiff in his professional capacity, and which was a false, scandalous, malicious and defamatory statement and libel, and which contained, among other things, the false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory and libelous matter following:
• “ Furthermore, the statement has been emphasized that Mr. Gib.son’s services were highly efficient and satisfactory. The interesting fact is not mentioned that his removal was recommended on the ground of inefficiency as the result of an investigation of his office by the Department of the Special Agents of the Treasury something*568 like two- years ago. This department has hitherto had the. repute of being free from purely political influences.”
In connection with the matter thus claimed to have been defamatory and libelous the following averment is made in the complaint: “ That the whole of said article, especially so much of it as is hereinbefore specifically referred to, was wickedly and maliciously contrived and intended by defendant to injure the plaintiff in his good name, fame and credit and professional standing as an attorney and counselor of this court, and to bring him into public scandal, infamy, contempt, disrepute and disgrace with and among his clients and persons who would employ him, and his neighbors and of good citizens, by causing it to be suspected and believed by clients and those persons who would employ him, and his neighbors and citizens, that the plaintiff has been inefficient in his office as counsel for the Treasury Department before the Board -of ■ United States General Appraisers, and -was incompetent to properly discharge the important duties of his profession, and especially- of his said position as such counsel and guilty of misconduct in his said office, and was removed from said office on account thereof.”
. The complaint then further states that “ said defendant conveyed,, and intended to convey the meaning, and allege and cause it to be suspected and believed by said clients and persons who would employ him, and his neighbors and citizens that his conduct in office had been investigated, and that his removal had been recommended on the ground of his inefficiency, and that this plaintiff was incapable of fulfilling the duties of his said office, and that his'professional attainments were meagre, and that he had been guilty of misconduct in his office, and that 'the investigation had actually been made by the Treasury Department through the special agents of the said department, and that his said -removal had been made on that account.”
The argument is earnestly made by the defendant that the matter of which the plaintiff complains does not constitute a general charge affecting the plaintiff, as a lawyer, but the whole of it is merely to be confined to a charge of. inefficiency -in a particular position, and that a proper construction of such matter Would- bring the article within the decision off this court in Ratzel v. N. Y. News Pub. Co. (67 App. Div. 598) where the charge was merely of a general careless manner of attending to business and which was not
As the matter complained of is susceptible of the meaning put upon it in the innuendo, it maybe considered libelous per se, and damage will be presumed.
We, therefore, think the demurrer was properly overruled, and the interlocutory judgment should be affirmed, with costs, with leave-to the defendant to withdraw the demurrer and answer on payment, of costs .in the court below and of this appeal.
Tan Brunt, P. J., Hatch and Laughlin, JJ., concurred; Ingraham,. J., dissented.
Dissenting Opinion
(dissenting):
I do not agree to the. affirmance of this judgment. The alleged libel consisted of newspaper comment upon the removal of the plaintiff from the position of counsel for the Treasury Department of the United States before the Board of United- States General Appraisers in the city of New York. It states that certain newspapers had been insisting that the plaintiff’s removal was a flagrant violation of the letter and spirit of the Civil Service Law, while in truth and in fact it was neither. The article then stated—and in this statement was contained the alleged libel—“ Furthermore, the statement- has been emphasized that Mr. Gibson’s services were highly efficient’ and satisfactory The interesting fact is not mentioned that his removal was recommended on the ground of inefficiency as the result of an investigation of his office by the Department of the Special Agents of the Treasury something like two years ago.” The discussion was as to the act of the Treasury Depart-, ment in making the removal. The article did ■ not directly charge that the plaintiff had been inefficient in the discharge of his duties or incapable of performing them, or that the plaintiff’s- services
I think the demurrer should have been sustained.
Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to withdraw demurrer and answer on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.