Case Name: LUCIEN S. CRANDALL, Respondent, v. ERNEST R. BARRON and Others, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of JAMES DENSMORE, Deceased, Appellants
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1890-07
Citations: 64 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 259
Docket Number: 
Parties: LUCIEN S. CRANDALL, Respondent, v. ERNEST R. BARRON and Others, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of JAMES DENSMORE, Deceased, Appellants.
Judges: 
Reporter: Supreme Court Reports (Hun)
Volume: 64
Pages: 259–264

Head Matter:
LUCIEN S. CRANDALL, Respondent, v. ERNEST R. BARRON and Others, as Executors of the Last Will and Testament of JAMES DENSMORE, Deceased, Appellants.
Libel — charge as to the proper measure of damages.
In an action to recover damages for an alleged libel, in which the plaintiff was charged to be “a veritable liar and scoundrel,” and to have had immoral relations with women, the judge charged the jury, among other things, that “if Lucien Crandall is a lecherous man, if he is an immoral man m his relations with women, and he has any character besides that, he is entitled to have it protected. If he is a liar and a scoundrel, and is not an impure man, he is entitled to be protected.”
Held, that the charge was erroneous and was calculated to draw the minds of the jurors aside from the proper rule in respect to damages.
Appeal by tbe defendants from a judgment, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Cortland on the 10th day of February, 1887, in favor of the plaintiff; and also from an order denying a motion for a new trial, made upon the minutes of said court, and. entered in the office of the clerk of Cortland county on February 11, 188Y, after a trial at the Cortland Circuit before the court and a jury, at which a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $10,000.
The action was brought to recover damages alleged to have been caused to the plaintiff by a libel written by the defendant James Densmore with respect to the plaintiff, which, among other things, stated “Crandall is a veritable liar and scoundrel;” and also charging that the said Crandall had been guilty of certain immoralities in cohabiting with a married woman.
A. P. Smith, for the appellants.
F. c& T. F. Oourtney, W. P. Goodelle and J. F. Eggleston, for the respondent.

Opinion:
Hardin, P. J.:
In the course of the charge delivered to the jury, the trial judge observed: " It is your duty, as jurors, to extend this protection not only to the man who is poor, not only to the man who is ignorant, but the meanest man in your county, in your State, has the same right as the best citizen to come into court, and you have got to give him just the same protection. Let me illustrate this by referring to a case which was tried before me. A man in Broome county sued a bridge company in New Jersey for negligence, in consequence of which a guy rope broke while they were erecting a bridge, and knocked him off from an abutment nineteen feet in height. To save himself he whirled about as he was struck, and jumped, striking upon his feet. He was made a cripple for life. Upon that trial the defense sought to 'show, and did show, that the reason why that man was crippled for life was because he was badly diseased with syphilis, claiming for that reason they were not responsible for the damages in that case. After some examination of the question I instructed the jury and found myself thoroughly backed up by the Court of Appeals; that it was not for the defendants in that action to punish that man for his sins against God or against society. He was entitled to the same damages as if his life had always been a moral life, and, more than that, if by reason of his own vices he was in such a condition that his damages were greater than they would otherwise have been, he was entitled to recover greater damages than if he had been a sound man. Applying this principle to this case, if Lucien Crandall is a lecherous man, if he is an immoral man in his relations with women, and he has any character left besides that, he is entitled to have it protected. If he is a liar and a scoundrel, and is not an impure man, he is entitled to be protected, and it is your duty and it is my duty to protect him. It is a solemn duty and you must not be carried away by passion or prejudice, but remember that tbe beauty of our law, tbe purity and integrity of our courts, consist in equal and exact justice to every suitor who comes into court." An exception was taken to that part of the charge where the court said: " That if Lucien Crandall is a lecherous man, and he has any character besides, that he had a right to protection, etc., and your duty is an important duty," etc.
It seems to me that the rule laid down by the learned trial judge in that portion of the charge quoted, and the comments thereon, were erroneous, and that the exception was well taken. The language of the charge was calculated to draw the mind of the jury aside from the proper rule in respect to damages; it may have been prejudicial in producing the large verdict rendered by the jury. It seems to me we ought not to accept a verdict coming from a jury after such instructions as were delivered to them in this case. Without passing upon the numerous other exceptions found in the appeal book, I find myself constrained to vote for a reversal of the order and judgment.
Order and judgment reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide the event.
Meewin, J.:
I think this judgment should be reversed. That portion of the charge referred to by the presiding justice, would, I think, be likely to mislead the jury. Besides, I am of the opinion that the trial court improperly, under the circumstances of this case, allowed the letter of 1883 to be read by plaintiff's counsel to the jury at the opening of the case.