Howard v. Raymond

11 Abb. Pr. 155
The Superior Court of New York City·Decided October 15, 1860·Published·Cited by 1 cases

Opinion

Hoffman, J.

I think the answer in the present case is within section 165 of the Code, as interpreted by the case of Bush a. Prosser (1 Kern., 357). There are allegations which, fairly construed, amount to a justification of the libel, and there are circumstances stated avowedly in mitigation of damages.

I think (but I believe the point is new), that it is immaterial that the matters stated in mitigation, are the same as those presented in justification. In other words, these facts are set forth as an absolute defence to any claim, and if insufficient for that purpose, as a partial defence, by operating to reduce plaintiff’s recovery. In my opinion, this is the construction of the pleading, and this is warranted by the Code.

Demurrer to the answer overruled, with costs.

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

Howard v. Raymond, 11 Abb. Pr. 155 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1860).

11 Abb. Pr. 155 (Howard v. Raymond) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Fink v. Justh
14 Abb. Pr. 107 (The Superior Court of New York City, 1872)