Case Name: Charles Hickey, Plaintiff, v. The Corson Manufacturing Company, Defendant
Court: New York Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1908-02
Citations: 58 Misc. 70
Docket Number: 
Parties: Charles Hickey, Plaintiff, v. The Corson Manufacturing Company, Defendant.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York Miscellaneous Reports
Volume: 58
Pages: 70–72

Head Matter:
Charles Hickey, Plaintiff, v. The Corson Manufacturing Company, Defendant.
(Supreme Court, Erie Special Term,
February, 1908.)
Libel and slander — Words concerning occupant of office — In general.
A complaint which, after setting forth the publication in defendant’s newspaper claimed to be libelous, alleges that defendant by said publication meant to charge that the plaintiff in his official capacity as "county _ judge had rewarded a member of assembly, naming him, with references and lucrative appointments for procuring the passage of a bill raising the plaintiff’s official salary, states a good cause of action; as the language used'was obviously calculated to degrade the character of the plaintiff, impeach his integrity as a judge and injure him in the public estimation.
Demukreb to complaint. The action is for libel. The complaint states that the defendant a’s proprietor and publisher of a newspaper published of and concerning the plaintiff, the county judge of Niagara county, the following words: “Assemblyman Thompson who passed the salary grab bill, has recovered his reward in rich references and other fat matters at the disposal of the county judge.”
“ The Agent ¡Rewarded.
“ The bill raising Judge Hickey’s salary $2,000 was introduced and passed by Assemblyman George ¡F. Thompson. The judge’s appreciation of the helpful act has been shown toward Attorney Thompson in a very material way. Since the increase of salary no lawyer in the county has fared as well as Attorney Thompson in the way of fat references and other matters at the disposal of the county judge. This is a matter of record and a bold statement of facts, and details as embodied in the public records can be furnished to anybody disputing them.”
It is also alleged that the defendant by such publication meant to charge that plaintiff, acting in his official capacity as county judge, had rewarded said Thompson with preferences and lucrative appointments for procuring the passage of a bill unlawfully increasing the plaintiff’s official salary and that the public records of said county showed such charges to be true.
David Tice, for plaintiff.
Hopkins & Brim, for defendant.

Opinion:
Brown, J.
If such publication is calculated to injure the character, and is a reflection upon the integrity of the plaintiff, or to degrade him in public estimation and subject him to a loss of public confidence and respect, it is libelous. The natural inference from the publication is that, in procuring a raise of $2,000 in plaintiff's salary, the member of assembly acted as the agent of the county judge and that the agent has been paid for this service to the county judge, by the county judge, as judge, by being appointed as referee in fat references and given lucrative appointments.
I cannot subscribe to this doctrine that a county judge can appoint a member of assembly as referee in fat references as a reward for procuring a raise of $2,000 in salary of the judge, without degrading the character of the county judge in the public estimation, holding him up to the contempt and ridicule o-f the community, besmirching his integrity and bringing upon him the indignation of an outraged people. If a judicial officer can do such a thing without being subjected to a loss of public confidence and respect, destructive of his usefulness as a judge, it is a sad commentary on the depths of judicial depravity to which a judge can descend and still maintain the confidence of the community in his fair, honest, judicial ability to conscientiously discriminate between right and wrong. If a judge can do such a thing and honestly believe it to he right, no public that I know of will long continue to believe that he is competent to pass on questions of litigants, insuring what is honest, right, just or decent. To say that the assemblyman passed the bill raising the salary of the county judge as the agent of the judge, and that the assemblyman was rewarded for such act by the principal by appointments as referee, etc., comes so perilously near charging an act within the refined -and legal definition of bribery, that the casual, ordinary reader would most naturally infer that the crime had been attempted if not consummated; at any rate, the language used was obviously calculated to degrade the character of the plaintiff, impeach his integrity as a judge and injure him in the public estimation.
Demurrer overruled; defendant may answer on paying costs to he taxed.
Demurrer overruled.