Case Name: SOPER v. BUTLER
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1906-11-14
Citations: 101 N.Y.S. 345
Docket Number: 
Parties: SOPER v. BUTLER.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 101
Pages: 345–347

Head Matter:
SOPER v. BUTLER.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Fourth Department.
November 14, 1906.)
Libel and Slander—Sufficiency of Complaint.
A complaint for libel, containing the usual allegations of malice and charging the publication by defendant concerning plaintiff of an article stating that M. saw P. to-day at the county jail, who, with another, was arrested for murder, and insisted that P., under the name of S. (plaintiff), had worked under him, and that P. (or S.) had been an Episcopalian divinity student, whose home was in Toronto, etc., sufficiently stated a cause of action as against a demurrer, though amplified by a bill of particulars stating facts tending to show, not only that the dispatch was published in good faith, but also that plaintiff was not the person referred to in the dispatch.
McLennan, P. J., and Nash, J., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, Erie County.
Action by Harry G. Soper against Edward H. Butler. From a judgment for defendant, and an order denying plaintiff’s motion for new trial made on the minutes, under Code Civ. Proc. § 999, he appeals. Reversed.
Argued before McLENNAN, P. J„ and SPRING, WILLIAMS, NASH, and KRUSE, JJ.
H. B. Butterfield, for appellant.
Simon Fleischmann, for respondent.

Opinion:
KRUSE, J.
The action is for libel. The alleged libelous article is the same dispatch as that set forth in the action of the same plaintiff against the Associated Press, with the addition of a heading thereto and a statement appended to the dispatch. Upon the trial the defend ant made a motion to dismiss the complaint upon the ground that the complaint, as amplified by the bill of particulars, does not state a cause of action, specifically claiming that it appears by the complaint and bill of particulars that the matter was not published of and concerning the plaintiff, and does not relate to the plaintiff in any manner. The motion was granted, and the plaintiff excepted.
We think the heading and statement appendéd to the published dispatch, and the additional facts contained in the bill of particulars, are not of such a character as to take the case out of the effect of the decision of the case of Soper v. Associated Press (decided herewith) 101 N. Y. Supp. 342. While these facts tend to show, not only that the dispatch was published in good faith, but also that the plaintiff was not the person referred to in the dispatch, we cannot say as a matter of law that the general allegation of the plaintiff that the article published of and concerning him was superseded by these additional facts and the other allegations of the complaint, making it appear thereby that it was not published about the plaintiff. If we are correct in the conclusion we have reached, it follows that the complaint should not have been dismissed.
The judgment and order denying the motion for a new trial should be reversed, and a new trial ordered; costs to the appellant to abide the event.
SPRING and WILLIAMS, JJ., concur.