Case ID: lock-rev-cas_1/html/0319-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Stone v. Cooper, 2 Denio, 293—306.
    Not reported below. See opinion of S. Ct., per Cowen, J., 2 Denio, 295.
    
      Libel; Pleading.
    
    The plaintiff below declared upon the following libel published by defendant. “ Mr. J. Fennimore Cooper need not be so fidgetty in his anxiety to finger the cash to be paid by us toward his support. It will be forthcoming on the last day allowed by the award, but we are not disposed to allow him to put it into Wall street for shaving purposes before that period. Wait patiently; there will be no locksmith necessary.” On demurrer:
    The Supreme Court held, that the allusion to the locksmith, the stature of it not being stated in the inducement, did not render the publication libellous; but that the part of the article representing the plaintiff as anxious to get the money to use it in shaving, was libellous. That the libel implied that the plaintiff was in the habit of shaving, which they held to mean, in common parlance, usury. The defendant brought a writ of error.
    The Court of Errors held, that for want of a proper inducement the publication in that respect, was not libellous¡ and held the declaration insufficient also as to the allusion to" the locksmith.
   Judgment reversed on the latter point only, 15 to 5.