Case Name: John P. Cohalan, Respondent, v. The New York Press Company, Limited, Appellant
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1911-12-29
Citations: 148 A.D. 89
Docket Number: 
Parties: John P. Cohalan, Respondent, v. The New York Press Company, Limited, Appellant.
Judges: 
Reporter: Appellate Division Reports
Volume: 148
Pages: 89–93

Head Matter:
John P. Cohalan, Respondent, v. The New York Press Company, Limited, Appellant.
First Department,
December 29, 1911.
Libel — erroneous charge — damages—harmless error.
Action for libel. Errors in the charge relating to the measure of damages examined, and held, that in view of the nature of the article and the amount of the verdict it cannot be said that the erroneous charge increased the damages or that the error was sufficient to warrant a reversal, since the article was one as to which the jury would have been justified in awarding a sum equal to the verdict without including punitive damages.
Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented, with opinions.
Appeal by the defendant, The New York Press Company, Limited, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of New York on the 6th day of March, 1911, upon the verdict of a jury for $10,000, and also_ from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 30th day of March, 1911, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
Philip Carpenter [Frank Parker Ufford with him on the brief], for the appellant.
William McArthur [Mirabeau L. Towns with him on the brief], for the respondent.

Opinion:
Scott, J.:
I agree that there was error committed in the particulars pointed out by Mr. Justice Laughlin ; but that error went only to the measure of damages and in view of the nature of the article and the amount of the verdict, I do not think it. can fairly be said that it really increased the damages; since the article was one as to which the jury would have been justified in awarding a sum equal to the verdict without including punitive damages.
. I think, therefore, that the error was one which we can overlook and that the judgment and order appealed from should be affirmed, with costs.
Miller and Dowling, JJ., concurred; Ingraham, P. J., and Laughlin, J., dissented.