Case ID: ny_229/html/0591-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Edward B. Thompson, Appellant, v. Carl W. Hamilton et al., Respondents.
    
      Libel — complaint properly dismissed.
    
    
      Thompson v. Hamilton, 189 App. Div. 937, affirmed.
    (Submitted June 2, 1920;
    decided July 7, 1920.)
    Appeal from, a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the first judicial department, entered November 28, 1919, affirming a judgment in favor of defendants entered upon an order of Special Term granting a motion by defendants for judgment in their favor upon the pleadings in an action for libel. The alleged libel read as follows: " The Visayan Refining Company’s cocoanut oil mill began to operate upon a commercial basis on May 29, 1916. It was expected that this mill would have a capacity of 69 tons of oil per day, but up to the time of the departure of E. P. Thompson, its first manager, the largest daily run was 53.2 tons. This mill has always used Anderson expellers for the first pressing of copra meal and Buckeye hydraulic presses for the subsequent extraction of the largest possible amount of cocoanut oil from the expeller cake. In the early days of its operation there wag inaugurated, in accordance with Mr. Worcester’s earnest recommendation, a careful scientific investigation into the mechanical and chemical problems involved in the commercial production of cocoanut oil with a view to increasing the amount and improving the quality of the mill’s output. This investigation has continued uninterruptedly up to the present time with the result that a mill which, at the outset, could not be driven hard enough to produce more than 40 tons of oil per day now readily maintains a daily output of 120 tons. This change is primarily due not to the installation of additional machinery, only two expellers having thus far been added to the ten originally installed, but to improvements in the manufacturing process which have resulted from the investigation above referred to.” The complaint alleged that the meaning of this article was that the plaintiff was incompetent, inefficient and unreliable and that due to these failings in 'the plaintiff the defendants’ mill was not properly constructed, conducted or operated, and that by reason of said publication plaintiff has been injured in his good name.
    
      Eugene D. Boyer and David C. Lewis for appellant.
    
      Martin Taylor and AlmetF. Jenks, Jr., for respondents.
   Judgment affirmed, with costs; no opinion.

Concur: His cock, Ch. J., Chase, Collin, Cardozo, Pound, Crane and Andrews, JJ.