Haughie v. New York & New Jersey Telephone Co.

New York Supreme Court

Haughie v. New York & New Jersey Telephone Co.

34 Misc. 634, 70 N.Y.S. 584

CourtNew York Supreme Court

DecidedApril 15, 1901

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 34 Misc. 634 (Haughie v. New York & New Jersey Telephone Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Haughie v. New York & New Jersey Telephone Co., 34 Misc. 634, 70 N.Y.S. 584 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1901).

Pincite

Opinion

Gaynor, J.

The action is for malicious prosecution. The allegations of the complaint of the publication in a newspaper of the arrest of the plaintiff upon the charge of the defendant, and of the charge against him, and setting the articles out in full, are irrelevant. If the defendant caused the publications to be made, it may be sued for libel; but the matter is not pleaded as a cause of action; nor could the two causes of action be united (Code Civ. Pro. § 484). If the fact of publication be competent as evidence to show the extent of the publicity, and hence of the plaintiff’s damage (about which I. say nothing), that is no reason for pleading it. Evidence should never be pleaded, although some timid ones in our learned profession are of late made uneasy on that head by the learned reporter’s catch words to his learned head note to the learned opinion in Stokes v. Polley (164 N. Y. 266), viz., “Evidence — When Admissible Although Not Pleaded.” But a learned profession should not swerve for such inadvertences, wherever found.

The motion is granted with $10 costs.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Gaynor, J.

The action is for malicious prosecution. The allegations of the complaint of the publication in a newspaper of the arrest of the plaintiff upon the charge of the defendant, and of the charge against him, and setting the articles out in full, are irrelevant. If the defendant caused the publications to be made, it may be sued for libel; but the matter is not pleaded as a cause of action; nor could the two causes of action be united (Code Civ. Pro. § 484). If the fact of publication be competent as evidence to show the extent of the publicity, and hence of the plaintiff’s damage (about which I. say nothing), that is no reason for pleading it. Evidence should never be pleaded, although some timid ones in our learned profession are of late made uneasy on that head by the learned reporter’s catch words to his learned head note to the learned opinion in Stokes v. Polley (164 N. Y. 266), viz., “Evidence — When Admissible Although Not Pleaded.” But a learned profession should not swerve for such inadvertences, wherever found.

The motion is granted with $10 costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

34 Misc. 634, 70 N.Y.S. 584, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/haughie-v-new-york-new-jersey-telephone-co-nysupct-1901.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack