The sun., 1902-07-10
AyOTHrRIICrORY FOR THE NN.
Judge rrecsimans dismissal of . Libel
Complaint Upheld on Appeal.

In March 1901 n butcher named Hart
mann bruugh, an action against IHE
suN for the publication of an alleged litcl
on Jan 81 ie,i Tho cas-" was tried t"fore
Mr. Justice Freedman and a jury. a. Trial
Term Part y. of tho Suprcm" Court IN
Nov "a last when after the plaintiff had
put In all hi- evidence motion made 10y
the defcnl ant = counsel 20 dismiss tho com
plain, was granted 10y Judge Freedman.
who said
Under tho ruling heretofore made by me
IN sruilar css"-. | am hosHd To- hoih nov
that that part oi the publication N WHICH
plaintiffs name app"ars - ihd"p"nd"ht ot
the preceding part and that th" only chars"
made !gaiust o." plhihtif which can iiirll
i that be- va h.ii Tor violation Of an ordi-
nance which fuiud- butchers tn display meat
Ia the street, aui that hHs l""h shown 10
t- true Then 90" only Other thtLs That
remains is it VS. stated In each stur"
tainted poultry was found Ihnt hay"
b.csusc poultry may hacom- tSinicd IA
t's household uN"f rCHi %" complaint
must. therefore. u" dI-ruI>-vd
Subsequently. Judgment was entered
for the defendant and the plaintiff Hart
mann took an appeal 'n The Appellate
Division. wherr his Htl"al wa argued
on june II rs B"uJau i. ~hNrIs Tor the
p.aiutIn and the Hon fnnkIn Bartlett
Tor the Defendant
down unanimous opinion all rmlnR the
Judgment IN favor uf IHE NUS Mr.. Ju-tbe
lugrahan IN rendering th" opinion oI IL"
oIurt, said
Tho complaint was disn Sod ~ tho end
oi the pIainu1's case upon ia" ground that
ysr 90 The article hr-t charged that -
butcher. rot uan,-d. had been selling hors~-
nralth Board inspectors had made a tour
~ The West side butcher shous. aud hs r"-
sut siN marsytncu N",, H.lor" Mas'stra,"
esi.riay charged With selling tainted meat
IL j. then said that one John Ram was Al
-r-t~d for having eto pounds oi hor-'nrsh
Ir h. store that he Was held for triAl under
$50 h,li Aud that i've persons Lamri. uI
whom the pia,Lt.h Sas one, we're held log
iorh.ds butchers 20 display meat IN the street
The complaint alleges tha' by TN" att'ir
hSy.ns been guilty ot violation OF s',tion
81 pl the Sui ltagy jpir OF the ,ty OF New
Nors tui that be- had been guilty of u.
uf'ic, oi s"iins puir'd' tainted r"'teh and
~ the trial q spr~,r.d that upon the dav
l' Jg"-tipn tni. plsiutif. Win several other
tut,t-r~ va oharg-u before thr Magi-trat"
Al .i. q vtul lltioA of y, Ction a. oi the SANITARY
Colo of tus csy of New YORK., which prONid"-
,.'t no u"s, ro3,'Ty ~, a f1ln" ",,,. .. n.h 'aa
dow, and doorvays thereof. and we're held
W. Tor N'..,,"e a., ~ 49, h', .,"6 or"'"iI ~"
~ - q. B. IL nnl, of-rca which tho article
&. question -tAted that tho plaintiff had been
,tar.eI Win He was not connected Ia any
~av wth The previous statement that 80
o. .rk'tItru had ben charged with selling
tainted meat. H. tact 10 was not stated that
TO corn.ctioW In any way be; v cen the charge
- selling tainted meat and the chhg" FOR a
40. tiou Of the ordnance Tor bidding butchers
- article would Connect the -iN market
. ~ rot named charged with s'.liug tsiut'Ti
'. at With the i've butcheis tanned and
,ssrsel with the violation Of a." ordibanc"
Nur 80 We think that tho concluding state
"rt lu each store tainted poultry was found
!, lpclous. N. statement Of ~" tng' That
T. butcher shop tainted poultry had been
Y md io.s not charge the butcher With
the and was no, rel.el on Ia th" compliant
o Ipon N" trial a. s,'r1ci~nt 70 su't .ih the |
&C 90 section 90, oi the Penal Code pro- |
t.Ia. that "A person who. with intent that |
saur NAV BE- us'~i a. food. drink ~ mrii- !
,r',.l. vhatevcr Witch 10 his knoNl~d !
]. tainted or spoiled or foT any cause unht
," b" used ~ such food, dfink or n'"ticluc. |
: .Uilty % "a mtsdemcanor ~" Tact that !
uutchor's shop there Was found poultry |
~ neat that had become t!in'cd. when such |
.Gsl'-, of moot was not sold or eNrosf fof |
y" ~ intended Tor -nle. would neither he /
trgtrE a crime nor Al oTri - ~ any Kind |
80 j. no allegation of -rccial damage urd |
u sustain the ac,ica the articlc must ir
lousid,rins the whole article u {. quite
or that what the defendant Intended 20 do
- 70 CIV" an account ol Y NutlAttl IIofe'u-
.. before a Magistrate In Witch this de-
"~isrt With Others hNd been chargs-i viii
violation ~ m ordinance 81 the city Of New
HfA and "a far A. this defendant made any
srg~ against this pl,iutin his ern teeth
u'N shows the article 10 br ''u.
: utnk tho court Was justified in dismiss
. 'Ir complaint aut that the Judgment
ruell,,i from should 10 af1irm~i With c"st>
Presiding Jusiice Van BrrInt and Judges
','t"r~nn. Hatch and Lauehlin concurrrd
rh judge lngraham