Case Name: NEW YORK BUREAU OF INFORMATION v. RIDGWAY-THAYER CO. et al.
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1907-05-10
Citations: 104 N.Y.S. 202
Docket Number: 
Parties: NEW YORK BUREAU OF INFORMATION v. RIDGWAY-THAYER CO. et al.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 104
Pages: 202–206

Head Matter:
(119 App. Div. 339)
NEW YORK BUREAU OF INFORMATION v. RIDGWAY-THAYER CO. et al.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 10, 1907.)
Libel—Words Libelous Pee Se.
An article, entitled “Bucket Shop Sharks,” reading: “One of M.’s most intimate friends and active lieutenants is K., founder of the New York Bureau of Information, now managed by his brother, K. K. is a tout, sleek enough in his methods to have corralled bankers and brokers of unimpeachable legitimacy as clients for the New York Bureau of Information. His portrait, until it was surreptitiously removed,' was No. 295-G, in the Chicago Rogues’ Gallery, and he has the distinction of having served a penal sentence for the larceny of goods from such masters of merchantry as Levi Z. Letter and Marshall Field”—was libelous per se as to the New York Bureau of Information, whether the statements in regard to K. referred to the founder of the bureau or to his brother.
[Ed. Note.—For cases in point, see Cent. Dig. vol. 32, Libel and Slander, §§ 80, 174.]
Ingraham and Scott, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by the New York Bureau of Information against the Ridgway-Thayer Company and others. From an interlocutory judgment overruling their demurrer to the complaint, defendants appeal.
Affirmed.
Argued before PATTERSON, P. J., and INGRAHAM, LAUGH-EIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
Clarence J. Shearn, for appellants.
Chester H. Lane, for respondents.

Opinion:
LAUGHLIN, J.
This is an action for libel. The ground of the demurrer is that the facts alleged do not constitute a cause of action. No special damages are alleged. The question presented by the demurrer is whether the article alleged to have been published of and concerning the plaintiff is libelous per se. The plaintiff alleges that it is a domestic corporation lawfully engaged in conducting in the city of New York a reporting agency, "for the purpose of giving information to its subscribers relative to persons, corporations, and firms, their business standing and reputation," and "has established for itself a high reputation among the business community for the accuracy, integrity, and trustworthiness of its reports, and has enjoyed a good name, fame, and reputation among its customers and the business community in general, and that as a result thereof" its business has been profitable. The defendant corporation was the publisher of "Everybody's Magazine," in which the alleged libelous article was published; and the defendant Ridgway was its president, having charge of the conduct of its affairs and the management of the publication, and the defendant Teague composed the article and instigated its publication. In the July issue of said magazine for the year 1906, in an article entitled "Bucket Shop Sharks," the defendant published the following:
"One of Bliner's most intimate friends and active lieutenants is Henry Burton King, founder of the New York Bureau of Information, now managed by liis brother, J. D. W. King. King is a tout, sleek enough in his methods to have corralled bankers and brokers of unimpeachable legitimacy as clients for the New York Bureau of Information. His portrait, until it was surreptitiously removed, was No. 295-G, in the Chicago Rogues' Gallery, and he has the destinction of having served a penal sentence for the larceny of goods from such masters of merchantry as Levi Z. Letter and Marshall Field."
The sufficiency of the complaint does not depend wholly upon the article as published. The plaintiff alleges by way of innuendo that the defendants meant by said article, and intended to convey the belief to its readers and to the public in general, that the plaintiff's business was managed by persons of notoriously bad character; that it was conducting an unlawful and illegitimate business; that it was organized to promote improper schemes and undertakings; that it is and has been conducted in the interest of persons seeking to defraud the public by means of gambling on horse races and the fluctuations of the stock market; that J. D. W. King, president of the plaintiff, is a tout and a procurer of gambling houses, and adopted improper and unlawful methods in soliciting business for the plaintiff; that the plaintiff's president had been guilty of the crime of larceny, had served a penal sentence therefor, and used improper and unlawful means in procuring the removal of his picture from the Chicago Rogues' Gallery. The falsity of the article and the maliciousness of the publication are alleged; and injur}' to the plaintiff in its reputation by a loss of public confidence which it theretofore enjoyed, with resulting financial loss and injury to its business, are likewise alleged.
The article is not susceptible of every meaning ascribed to it in the innuendoes. It may be that the charges that King is a tout, and with respect to his having corralled clients for the plaintiff, and with respect to his having served a penal sentence and his picture having been in and surreptitiously removed from the rogues' gallery, refer to Henry Burton King, the founder of the plaintiff, and not to his brother, J. D. W. King, its present president and manager. If it refers to the president and present manager, there could be but little doubt that the article would be libelous per se, because it is manifest that such a charge against the present manager and chief officer of a corporation conducting a business essentially confidential would directly injuriously affect its credit and cause pecuniary injury, which is the test in cases of libel against corporations (Reporters' Association v. Sun Printing & Publishing Association, 112 App. Div. 246, 98 N. Y. Supp. 294, affirmed 186 N. Y. 437, 79 N. E. 710; Union Associated Press v. Heath, 49 App. Div. 254, 63 N. Y. Supp. 96), by injuring its reputation for proper and honest business methods, and for procuring, conveying, and furnishing reliable information.
Assuming, however, that those charges relate to the founder of the plaintiff, still I think the article is libelous per se. In that view it clearly shows, not only the organization of the corporation by this notorious disreputable character and criminal, but that he remained connected with it and took an active part in soliciting business for it. (The charges against his business methods while acting for the corporation characterize its business methods and directly affect its credit and cause it pecuniary injury. It does not appear that his busi ness connection with the plaintiff has been severed; but, even though it has, still, while it may not be said as a matter of law that the article reflects upon the business and the business methods and management of the plaintiff, yet I think that the jury might find that that was the meaning intended to be conveyed by the publication, and was the sense in which it would probably be understood by those who read it, and, if so, it would, I think, naturally and necessarily result in pecuniary injury to the defendant, be libelous per se, and not demurrable. Morrison v. Smith, 177 N. Y. 366, 69 N. E. 725. I am of the opinion, therefore, that the demurrer was properly overruled.
It follows that the interlocutory judgment should be affirmed, with costs.
PATTERSON, P. J., and CLARKE, J., concur.