)"EDERAL BEP(IRTEB, vol.
,.rryon ,ate able from this evidence to find 'that the injury is attributable ,totlW;Ilegligence of defendant, the verdict should be forthe plaintiff. ,Should; you find for the plaintiff, In assessing his damages you may w.kdnJio,con!\iderationhis physioal pain, and mental anguish, if any, resulting from such ,pam and injury; his Joss of time,medioines, and hiU$forattendance of physician. This is not a case for puni,is, ,eltemplary damages,-but you, will allow only as, under all the facts and circumstances to you to be l'easonable and just, not exceeding the sum ,()!l $l<M)QQ Jor. ; '., ,,: 1
,questiQIl; oftheizpPllted negligence,you ,ought to find theissue13 .for it.
,I
GOLD13ERGlllB ,,; .,;J?HILADELPl3:IA GROCER
PUB. Co.
New Y01'1c; Apiil15, 1800.)' ' , " Apub1fshed stateIPe,nt tQ tQeeffect t1;lllot plaintiff was not aqtuated by , . Oi'I,Ove,'or, his gu,ild in soliciting subscr,iption for a worlfl's fair froIP the t.radesJ!1en ,; ,;,iulKs; linll pfbusiness"but by,the de'lre:to earll,asala17 ifA50 per day, 18 not <, .libelous per 8 e . ' " ' :'," , ·...· ;.: .... ',' >':. ,::., , _ , ' . ' I
. w-' "'",,'
"',', "
"
,,:'
,
,,' ,
"A,:t :'"Isaac, ,I
complaint. ," " Henry GaWraith WaM, for defendant.
,':.OUdemurret
laboter'is worthy i}lre, doe8 seeInvery much out o.f place under the pircuinstlineesL ,It apI)tl&'t8 that the p're8iding officer' of the New York Unioh not actlUltlldby patriotism oi!0veof :his guild in obtaining these sub8crip. thlltt ,t,e, main springo;f exertions ,was a per diem allowance of ,tor. thqugh I J?O report I informed 't!iat a bllIfor fOl; days' the rate mentIOned.· I do not It,nOww.iillt made ofth,e matter.bu,t hope that tb'e was increased/Ito at h!8St'ftve dollan a day, 'since that kind of ;,wQrkia wortncertainlythe figufewe mention; 0 temporal 0 mOTes t 'What
,Thisi!lademurrer tothe'plaintitl"13 in'an aofor an alleged libel.',ThEl ;complaint ,al.}eges' tlmt' ,is a in ,of New alid.is"Nso, New York E,etail aJl orofNew York gNo,et;S then traq.,e, alsd, of the the ew York,!i' member of tIle for, the InternatIonal EXpoSItIon of 1892," committee"appointed, by, mayor t,0· ipstitute, and. op,'el'atean in the city of is the 'perSon referred, to in the' libelous as the upnisi!Ijpg officer of the 'New York union. 'i , ' article whIch :is, alleged to, bii '1ipelous is as {ol'}'" ' The , "dws:,,', ',",', :"',",, , : ' ,,' ,.,: ,""I day", 'ti()D, to tbesU,bSC,r,i,Ptio,n8 0,f' theretllU '$I'0eer8 t9 the World'S, Flilr, it, may ,be 'all right. since eV-
0tWe'l
";,
,',
GOLDBERGJtIt· fl. PHILADELPHIA GROCER PUB. CO.
a pity that the grocers of this city could not find one so unselfish as:to'do:sucb a work without the hope of gain giving birth to activity." I i ':' , No special damage is alleged. The demurrer is upon the ground that the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause tion, and the position of the defendant is that the publication is not libelous per 8e, and is not the ground· of an action,· unless special damages are alleged to have resulted from thepuhlication. The definitions of a libel are well known. The one given by Ohief Justice PARSONS, in Com. v. Clap, 4 Mass. 1!>8, which is succinct, clear, and probably as precise as the subject will permit, is as follows: "A libel is a malicious publication, expressed either in printing or writing, or by signs and pictures, tending either to blacken the memory of one dead, or the reputation of one who is alive, and expose him to pUblic hatred, contempt, or ridicule. Any words will be deemed defamatory which expose plaintiff to hatred. contempt, ridicule, or obloquy; which tend to injnre him', in his profession or trade, or cause him to be shunned or avoided by his bars." Odger, Sland. & Lib. 19. There is nothing in the publication of which the plaintiff complains which reflects upon his integrity, upon his business, moral, ,or Bocial character, or which imputes conduct of a fraudulent or dishonorable, kind. It is, however, claimed that the article holds him up to contempt or ridicule, because, although president of the New York Grocers' UniOn, he obtained subscriptions for the World's Fair from the, retail grocers for a small compensation,to be paid by the union for t,b,e time which was spent in this service. This claim calls for the eration of the question whether any published sneer or pleasantry which may create a smile at the expense of a plaintiff, but which criticises his conduct in nO important particular, is libelous per 8e. .In the case of, Stone v. Cooper, 2 Denio, the defendant had said, in a contemptuous article inref!ard to the plaintiff, that "we are not disposed to allow, him topufit [the amount of an award against the defendant] into Wall street for shaving purposes before" the last day allowed by the award.: Chancellor WALWORTH, in giving his opinion in the. court of errors upon, the question ?f the libelous character of the publication, said: ', "Still, it is not e"e,'y false an individual, even when the same is deliberately reduced to writing and published to the world, 8ufficient to sustain a private action to recover a compensation in damages'as for lIb!"l. '" '" '" But to sustain a private action for the recovery of a compensation in damages for a false and unauthorized publication, the plaintiff in such action must either aver and prove that he has sustained some special damage from the publication of the matter charged against him. orthe nature of the charge itself mUflt be such that the court can legally presume he has been degraded in the estimation of his acquaintances or of the public. or has Buffered some other loss either in his property. character, 0" business, or in nis domestic or sodal relations. in cOllsequence of the publication of sucb charge. Where. from the nature of the charge. therefore, in connection with other facts stated in the plaintiff's declaration, no such injury or loss will necessarily, or even prohably. result to him in consequence of the publication of such charge, he cannot rel'over damages as for a libel. without averring and prOVing that special damage has been in fact sustained by him in consequenoo of the publication of the false and unfounded charge."
FEDERAL REPORTER,
vol. 42.
This language virtually says that a sneer in the columns of a newspaper is not sufficient to sustain a private action for damages, when it conveys or insinuates no charge from which a court can infer that the plaintiff has been, or ought to be, degraded in the estimation of the public, and no special damage is averred. In somewhat the same line of thought it has been held that it is not actionable to pu blish of a man that he pleaded the statute of limitations against a debt theretofore admitted to be just, or that he shielded himself against the payment of a debt for liquors by the defense that the sale of liquors was prohibited by statute. The article in question aflserts,in substance, that the retail grocers' union had promised to pay the plaintiff, who was their president, a small compensation for the, time which he spent in collecting subscriptions amongthemembera of the union for the World's Fair, and that he was prompted to spend his time and obtain subscriptions by this per diem allowance, and that he had presented. ll. ,bill of $22.50 for 18 days'service, and that in thus doing he was not aCtuated by patriotism or love of his g:uild, but bythe stimulus of thiseompensation. The correspondsays fllat the action may be all right, but seems very much out of .' All tIlat is charged is that the society thought proper to offer a slightretnUlleration for the services and expenses of a person who was to flpend his time in a cause which it considered important; that he entered upon the under that promise; that he a bill which the correspondent consider:nery small; that the correspondent is of the opinion that the transaction was unpatriotic; and that it was a pity that the grocers 'could' not have obtained a person so unselfishafl to do such work for nothing. The action of the societyand of the plaintiff was legal and proper. They each recognized that the plaintiff not be called upon 'to give up considerable time without some compensation for the outlay·. ' Be charged hiss than he was authorized to do, for he had a. tq an allowance of $2.50 a day, while for 189ays' services he $1;25 per day. .The article is a sneer at the plaintiff, but I cannot special damage not being averred,that it says anything *hichcanproperly dishonor or degrade or injure him in the estimation of.his or the public. or cause him to suB:er loss in property, <$.aracter, or in his. social relations. ' , The d.emurrer is sustained.
j!'
"";'
. I .
." ...
;;..,'
.