Case Name: Hugh F. Gordon, Appellant, v. New York Evening Journal Publishing Company, Respondent
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-06-29
Citations: 127 A.D. 353
Docket Number: 
Parties: Hugh F. Gordon, Appellant, v. New York Evening Journal Publishing Company, Respondent.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 127
Pages: 353–354

Head Matter:
Hugh F. Gordon, Appellant, v. New York Evening Journal Publishing Company, Respondent.
Second Department,
June 29, 1908.
Libel—pleading — writing not charging crime.
A publication, in writing which holds one up to ridicule; contempt, hatred or obloquy is libelous even though it charge no criminal offense.
Hence, the complaint on a libel which, in substance, charged the plaintiff with falling into a passion and threatening to kill another without cause dr justification should not be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action on the theory that no crime was charged.
Appeal by the plaintiff, Hugh F. Gordon, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the defendant, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 18th day of April, 1907, as resettled by a judgment entered in said clerk’s office on the 7th day of June, 1907, dismissing the complaint upon the ground that it failed to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 18th day of April, 1907, denying the-plaintiff’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
The action is for damages for libeifor publishing of and concerning ' the jplaintiff the following:
“With her eighteen-months-old baby stroking her hair, Mrs. Loretta Gordon, twenty-eight years old, was found dead in her bed by her husband on his return from work to his home at No. 106 Etna Street, Brooklyn, to-day. Within fifteen minutes after the discovery of.the body the husband had a quarrel with an undertaker who had been called in by Mrs. Gordon’s sister.
“ ‘Unless you leave this house immediately Pll blow your brains out ’, Gordon declared to Undertaker F. F. Brewster.
‘“I was called here by Miss Mabel Inglehardt and I shall proceed ’, coolly replied Undertaker Brewster. Then he did proceed without interference from Gordon. * * * ■ •
“Miss Mabel Inglehardt, a sister .of the dead woman, had slept.in the house during the night. She was immediately called by Gor don and she sent, it is said, for Undertaker Brewster, against Gordon’s wishes,
“ Brewster found no marks of violence on the body.”
The plaintiff is the husband of the deceased woman mentioned therein.
Alexander S. Bacon, for the appellant.
Clarence J. Shearn, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Gaynor, J.:
On what notion this publication in'writing was deemed not to be a libel by -the learned trial court does 'not appear, unless because i.t, charges no crime. But that requisite does not relate to libels but only to oral slanders, as is too familiar to call for citations of authorities, unless to gratify the overgrown.habit of citation. Any publication in writing which holds - one up- to ridicule, contempt, hatred or obloquy is libelous, even though it charge no criminal offense. Here; the plaintiff is held out as going into a passion and threatening to kill another without cause ór justification. Certainly this wrongdoing holds him up to just hatred and' contempt, which is the due of all wrongdoing and wróngdoers. Such liberties cannot be taken with people with impunity. It is wholesome that the civil law of libel be strictly enforced. It affords full immunity for the publication of the truth in all cases (although that be not true of the criminal law of libel), and falsehoods should not be published however sensational and profitable.
The judgment should be reversed.
Woodward, Jenks, Hooker" and ¡Rich, JJ., concurred.
Judgment and order reversed and new trial granted, costs - to abide the event.