New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1916-11-10
jRBUNE UPHELD
nneREENHUT
,.stice CohaIan Denies the
plaintiffs Motion in
100000 Libel Suit

decision Of Justice Daniel F
-. handed down yesterday IN
', Term. Part ]. OF the Supreme
,be motion Of Greenhut's to
.'r ' n, most substantial allegations
' ~, from The Tribune's answer in
- s.,,rtment stores 100000 libel
-. denied in all respects.
'.s,-s Of The Tribune will renem-
a.. IN February last announce
as made in is columns that a
81 Samuel Hopkins Adams deal
y. - false and deceptive advertis-
-,,hods in the Big store" would
',oslished in later Sunday issue,
s.r.,isg is the most substantial part
49,, Of these announcements. which
rublished under the heading,
.r,s, sale 81 Greenhut's':
aS,nuel Hopkins Adams went shop
..,n Creenhu;'s and found that the
fNk -
- .spposed TO contain only the stock
: u, bsnkrupt A. p. Matthews Com
-, was really a me tumble of Green
=. rash. Slegel-Cooper relics and
.,,gs genuine Matthews merchandise
lad vlsusibil.,y 20 the occasion.
n, as clear a case Of juggling la
=. and marking up prices as the
,,bup, Bureau Of Investigation ever
...ou,,ered even among the Kosof-
~, and Finkelsteins-Willards of re-
al trade.
III, whole amazing story Of how
a. honest name OF q respected con-
- Ike the Matthews Company can
!, Mt 70 such uses in the face of the
80 Advertising law now in force is
TAIN detail-with descriptions Of how
,,a purchase was made and with eX-
W ipprsissls Of values in day after
,,--,rows issue Of The Sunday 1rib-
IT.
Injunction Is Sought
c-,nhut's then made desperate eff
a..s 70 muzzle The Tribune by seeking
A. Injunction IN the Supreme Court TO
,,v.nt the publication OF Mr.. Adams s
CAY. The attempt failed. as Justice
Cotilsn, before whom the motion for
Injunction DenGente lite was
t-cugtt. rendered a decision refusing
d. ad Of the judiciary 70 censor the
,,sl On the following Sunday Mr..
kisns's story was published in The
tribune. not only with all its details
Inspecting the sale as stated in such
announcements and as prepared by Mr..
Adams az the time the injunction pro-
nsdngs were taken, but with add
ao.Sl details as 10 facts IN connec-
Ton with Greenhut's methods that had
sesn sscertained while such proceed
i,rs we're pending.
Greenhut's took no appeal from JUS
ice Cohalsn's decision. but about three
ron,hs later. after disseminating the
equity Injunction suit. Greenhut's com
-sneeo libel suit against The Tribune
tsnsndng 100000 damages. Even that
ardy suit was based. not upon Mr..
issmss exposure Of Greenhut's meth
o5s as contained in his full story. but
-srely upon the brief announcements
hove indicated that his story would
1,sr appear IL is s significant fact
As, no suit has ever been brought
.yon the story itself, although nearly
tgh, months have elapsed since II APP
Nared
Answer Is Justification
In lis answer in the libel suit The
Tribune stood firmly upon the ground
Isen By 10 both as 10 the truth OF
vhst it had published and also as 70
he public purposes which it was serv-
NJ BY the series Of articles in eues-
ton Il pleaded an Affirmative defence
q Justification. setting forth numerous
Instances Of the plaintiffs deceptive
and misleading advertising practices.
Il showed that plaintiffs predecessor,
whose good will il obtained and also
nown as Greenhut's before II went
into bankruptcy. followed evil method:
q Advertising. which had been exposed
a year earlier by Mr. Adams in story
As 10 which no complaint had ever been
made and upon which no suit had been
brought Messrs. Rose & Paskus made
a motion 20 strike out the greater part
q the allegations Of the defendants
answer, not alone because. as plain
iiS's counsel contended, the allegations
we're irrelevant and immaterial. but
also upon the ground that certain a J.
legations IN justification were scandal
Gus and were pleaded 70 cast discredit
upon the plaintiff. This motion Justice
Cohslan in all respects denied. 1t was
.'gued for the plaintiff by Macdonald
Dewitt
Opinion Upholds Tribune
In his opinion, which was marked by
Is clarity and grasp Of the situation
heated by Greenhut's complicated mo-
Ion. Justice Cohalan sustained all the
Of The Tribune. which were
PRESENTED in a brief prepared by Henry
v. Ssckett and Harold L. Cross. of the
I'm Of Sackett. Chapman & Stevens,
ounsel for the Tribune Association on
ne motion, which was orally argued
" Mr. Sackett.
Justice Cohslsn points out that sim
lar motions had been made in con
ndersble number Of other libel suits
brought against The Tribune upon its