Case Name: Kate Corr, Appellant, v. The Sun Printing and Publishing Association, Respondent
Court: New York Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1904-01-05
Citations: 177 N.Y. 131
Docket Number: 
Parties: Kate Corr, Appellant, v. The Sun Printing and Publishing Association, Respondent;
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Reports
Volume: 177
Pages: 131–140

Head Matter:
Kate Corr, Appellant, v. The Sun Printing and Publishing Association, Respondent;
Libel — When Complaint in Action for, Is Demurrable for. Failing to State Facts Showing Plaintiff to Be the Person Mentioned and Described in the Libel. Where it appears from the allegation of a complaint in an action for libel that the name, age, occupation, character and reputation of the plaintiff are not the same as the name, age, occupation, character and reputation of the person mentioned and described in the libelous article, and the complaint contains nothing to show that the libel described, or referred to, the plaintiff, except the general allegation that the libel was published of and concerning the plaintiff, the complaint is demurrable on the ground that it appears, upon the face thereof, that it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action; the provisions of section 535 of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply where the general averment that the defamatory matter was published of and concerning the plaintiff, is contradicted and rendered nugatory by other allegations of the complaint.
dorr v. Sun Printing & Publishing Go., 75 App. Div. 625, affirmed.
(Submitted December 17, 1903;
decided January 5,1904)
Appeal from a judgment of the Appellate Division of the Supreme Court in the second judicial department, entered October 21,1902, which affirmed a judgment of Special Term sustaining a demurrer to the complaint.
The complaint alleges, in substance, that the- plaintiff is twenty-six years of age, unmarried, and a resident of the borough of Brooklyn, and was and is a teacher by occupation, employed in one of the public schools of that borough, and until the publication of the libel had always borne a good character and reputation. The complaint then sets up the incorporation of the defendant and its ownership of the newspaper in question, The Sun.
It then alleges that on the 14tli day of August, 1901, the
said defendant wantonly, falsely, wickedly and maliciously, with intent to injure and destroy the good name, fame and reputation of the plaintiff, and to cause it to be believed that the plaintiff was guilty of the larceny and felony in the libel described, and was a notorious woman of bad reputation, composed, printed and published in said newspaper, in the regular edition thereof, of and concerning the plaintiff, and distributed and circulated the same widely and at large throughout said city, state and elsewhere, the following false, scandalous, defamatory article and libel, to wit. (The alleged libel is then set forth in full.)
It further alleges: “ That by reason of the premises, ■ the plaintiff has been damaged and injured in her character and reputation and held up to public scorn, infamy and disgrace, and has suffered and will continue to suffer great mental pain and anguish, to her damage in the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars.”
Judgment is thereupon demanded.
The material portions of the alleged libel are as follows:
“Cop Charmer in Trouble.
“Woman who infatuated many policemen held on charge of stealing a watch.
“ Thomas H. * " * a commission merchant of * * * Brooklyn, was in a-closed Myrtle Avenue car oil his way home at two o’clock yesterday morning, when a good looking and well dressed woman, who had got on the car with a young man, asked him the time. Thomas IT. * * * told her, replaced his gold watch into a waistcoat pocket and fell into a doze; he missed his watch and prevented the woman from leaving. The man who was with her disappeared. Thomas H. ■* * * told the conductor to call a policeman, but he refused, and the commission merchant kept guard over the woman until the car reached the borough line at Ridgewood, where Policeman Mahland took both to the. Hamburg Avenue station. Thomas H. * * * insisted on making a complaint, and the woman was held on the charge of grand larceny. She gave her name as Kate Losee and said she lived at 195 Hamburg Avenue. The police recognized her as Kittie Carr, the daughter of a former Brooklyn detective. Several years ago many policemen were infatuated with her. One, who belonged to the old police station at Flushing Avenue and Whipple Street, Williamsburgh, blew out his brains in the station. Another became insane, a third drank himself to death. The woman dropped out of sight about three years ago.
“Magistrate O’Reilly, after hearing Thomas H. * * * story, held the prisoner in five hundred dollars bail. The woman is about thirty-five years old.”
James Troy and Thomas II. Troy for appellant.
It is no longer necessary in an action for libel or slander to state in the complaint any extrinsic fact for the purpose of showing the application to the plaintiff of the defamatory matter, but the plaintiff may state generally that it was published. or spoken concerning him, and if that allegation is controverted, the plaintiff, must establish it on the trial. (Code Civ. Pro. § 535.) This is a case where extrinsic facts might be proved on the trial to show the application of the libel to the plaintiff. (Johnson v. Greene, 23 Abb. [N. S.] 343; Wesley v. Bennett, 5 Abb. Pr. 498; Mattice v. Wilson, 13 N. Y. Supp. 330; Malone v. Stillwell, 15 Abb. Pr. 421; Peters v. M. J. Assn., 74 App. Div. 307; Lehman, v. Tribune Assn., 75 N. Y. Supp. 1034; Jacquelin v. M. J. Assn., 39 App. Div. 515.)
FramMin Ba/rtlett for respondent.
There must be an identification of the plaintiff in the libel, either by name or by description. (Peters v. M. J. Assn., 74 App. Div. 305.) The complaint shows on its face by its specific allegations that the article in question was not published of and concerning the plaintiff, Kate Corr. (Fleischmann v. Bennett, 87 N. Y. 231.

Opinion:
Babtlett, J.
The plaintiff seeks to recover damages for an alleged libel published in the defendant's newspaper, known as The Sun, printed and published in the city of New York.
The defendant interposed a demurrer to the complaint on' the ground that it appears upon the face thereof it does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. The demurrer was sustained, with leave to the defendant to answer on terms which were not accepted, and the complaint was dismissed. The Appellate Division affirmed the final judgment duly entered.
The question involved in this appeal is the proper construction to be given section 535 of the Code of Civil Procedure, which reads as follows: " It is not necessary, in an action for libel or slander, to state, in the complaint, any extrinsic fact, for the purpose of showing the application to the plaintiff, of the defamatory matter; but the plaintiff may state, generally, that it was published or spoken concerning him; and, if that allegation is controverted, the plaintiff must establish it on the trial. "
We are of opinion that the complaint in this case brings it within Fleischmann v. Bennett (87 N. Y. 231), which holds that although the complaint contains the general words of section 535, the defamatory matter was published of and concerning the plaintiff, it does not aid him where this general averment is contradicted and rendered nugatory by other allegations.
This court said : " As the libel neither describes nor refers to the plaintiff, nor to the business in which lie was engaged, but names a different business, and a firm of which in a preceding portion of the complaint it is alleged he is not, and never was a member, it is manifest that the plaintiff cannot in any way be connected with the libelous matter set forth. * "x" * There is no principle which authorizes the introduction of any such evidence, where, on the face of the complaint, it is clearly apparent that the libelous words do not relate to, and have no connection with the plaintiff or his business as stated therein."
In the light of this decision let us examine the libel and the complaint in. the case at bar. The libel in substance charges that at two o'clock in the morning, on a Brooklyn street car, a woman about thirty-five years of age was charged with robbing a sleeping- man of his watch; was arrested and at the police station gave her name as Kate Losee, living at 195 Hamburg avenue and was held in $50d bail; that the police recognized her as Kittie Carr, the daughter of a Brooklyn detective; that several years ago. many policemen were infatuated with her — one blew out his brains — the second became insane — the third drank himself to death.
We have here the description of a thief and an abandoned woman, abroad at two o'clock in the morning, robbing a sleeping passenger on a street car. The plaintiff comes into court and avers that this libel was published of and concerning her, and the question is whether this general averment is rendered nugatory by other allegations.
The plaintiff alleges that her name is Kate Corr (not Carr); that she is twenty-six years of age (not thirty-five); that she is a teacher by occupation, employed in one of the public schools of Brooklyn and had always borne a good character and reputation. The libel does not refer to Kate Corr; it describes a woman with a different name.
It is, doubtless, true that an action for libel may be maintained where the plaintiff is not named, but is indicated by circumstances contained in the article which are capable of direct proof that the plaintiff was the person to whom reference was' made. Many cases in the lower courts illustrate this situation, as for instance, a plaintiff is referred to by his business, his place of business, his residence, and other facts, rendering it clear that he, and no one else, was referred to in the libel. In such a case section 535 of the Code applies, and it would be sufficient for the plaintiff to aver that the article was published of and concerning him; it would be unnecessary to allege in detail the facts essential to connect him with the libel.
' In the case at bar the libel clearly states the name of a woman who does not bear the name of the plaintiff ; it portrays a woman who years before was known to the police as a notoriously had character, at a time when this plaintiff may not have attained her majority, driving men to the insane asylum and the grave — a woman, in the language of the libel, who had " dropped out of sight some three years ago."
We are of opinion that it appears upon the face of the complaint that the libel was not published of and concerning the plaintiff, and that the demurrer was properly sustained.
The judgment should be affirmed, with costs.