Case ID: ny-st-rep_32/html/0968-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "\n      Dykman, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Daniel W. Tallmadge, Resp’t, v. The Press Publishing Company, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department
    
    
      Filed July 18, 1890.)
    
    Libel — Pleading—Supplemental answer,
    In an action for libel the only defenses pleaded were a denial and facts in mitigation, and a bill of particulars of such facts was ordered. Defendant thereafter moved for leave to serve an amended answer containing such specification of facts and also newly discovered facts constituting a defense of justification, and on denial thereof moved for leave to serve a supplemental answer setting up such justification. Held, that the motions should have been granted.
    Appeals from orders denying motions for leave to serve an amended answer and a supplemental answer.
    Action for libel in publishing an article in the New YorkWorld which intimated that plaintiff was corrupt and could be bribed to give his vote and influence for or against measures introduced in the legislature of which he was a member. The answer denied generally and set up the facts stated in the publication in mitigation. A bill of particulars was ordered, and such order was affirmed. 28 N. Y. State Bep., 396. Thereafter defendant moved for leave to serve an amended answer containing the same defenses as the original one and a specification of the facts required by the order for the bill of particulars, and also a defense of justification, setting up facts newly discovered, and some of which took place after the publication complained of was made. This motion having been denied, defendant served the bill of particulars and moved for leave to serve a supplemental answer setting up the defense of justification, which was also denied.
    
      De Lancey Nicoll, for app’lt; A. H. Dailey, for resp’t.
   Dykman, J.

There are two appeals from orders before us in this action, one from an order denying a motion for leave to serve an amended answer, and one from an order denying a motion for leave to serve a supplemental answer.

We think both motions should have been granted. Great liberality is allowed in pleading under our system of practice, and the defendant in this action should be allowed full opportunity to present every defense it may have to this action. The delay incident to' the service of a new answer is of small consequence in comparison with the possible miscarriage of justice by reason of an insufficient answer.

Both orders should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motions for leave to serve an amended or supplemental answer should be granted on payment of ten dollars costs to the defendant.

Barnard, P. J., and Pratt, J., concur.