Horton v. Binghamton Press Co.

122 A.D. 332, 106 N.Y.S. 875, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2430
CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York
DecidedNovember 13, 1907
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 122 A.D. 332 (Horton v. Binghamton Press Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Horton v. Binghamton Press Co., 122 A.D. 332, 106 N.Y.S. 875, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2430 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1907).

Opinion

Smith, P. J.:

Libel has been defined as a malicious defamation, expressed either in printing or writing, tending to blacken the reputation of one who is alive, and to expose him to "public hatred, contempt or ridicule. We are unable to find any warrant in the. article published for the inference by the jury that the plain tiff was charged with being a prostitute; Any inference that she was a prostitute that may be drawn from the charge that she lived in a block which was the resort of prostitutes would seem to be fully counterbalanced by the fact that she was living there with her husband and daughter. The charge that she was the housekeeper of a man who himself was a criminal, does not authorize the inference that she was his mistress, or that she was a person of immoral character.

From the article published two facts might have been submitted to the jury. First, whether the allegation that plaintiff resided in a block which was the resort of prostitutes tended in any way to hold her up to ridicule or contempt. If so, the jury might have been instructed that she was entitled to damages. Second, whether the allegation that her husband had obtained a divorce from her, which was false, did impute to her a fault or wrong which would tend to hold her up to contempt and scorn in the community. If so, the jury might have been charged that she was entitled to damages for such publication.

Whatever may he the grievance of the daughter against this defendant, we can see no other cause of complaint which this plaintiff may have, and as these questions were not submitted to the jury for their determination,- the order for a new trial was properly granted and should be affirmed, with costs.

All concurred; Sewell, J., not sitting.

Order affirmed, with costs.

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

Related

Hinsdale v. Orange County Publications, Inc.
217 N.E.2d 650 (New York Court of Appeals, 1966)
Kimmerle v. New York Evening Journal, Inc.
186 N.E. 217 (New York Court of Appeals, 1933)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
122 A.D. 332, 106 N.Y.S. 875, 1907 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2430, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/horton-v-binghamton-press-co-nyappdiv-1907.