Case Name: LYNOTT v. PEARSON
Court: New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1910-05-13
Citations: 122 N.Y.S. 986
Docket Number: 
Parties: LYNOTT v. PEARSON.
Judges: 
Reporter: West's New York Supplement
Volume: 122
Pages: 986–989

Head Matter:
LYNOTT v. PEARSON.
(Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
May 13, 1910.)
Libel and Slander (§ 81 )—Action—Pleading—Sufficiency.
A complaint alleging that defendant stated to the employer of plaintiff, a woman in domestic service, that plaintiff was “both drunk and crazy, out late at night, and a very untidy person,” sufficiently shows as against a general demurrer that the defendant spoke the words concerning plaintiff in her business or calling as a domestic.
[Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 187-197, 209, 210; Dec. Dig. § 81. ]
Laughlin and Miller, JJ., dissenting.
Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
Action by Anne Lynott against Dane A. Pearson. From an interlocutory judgment overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant appeals.
Affirmed, with leave to withdraw demurrer and to answer.
Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, MILLER, and DOWLING, JJ.
Oliver C. Reynolds, for appellant.
Bartley J. Wright, for respondent.
For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date. & Rep’r Indexes

Opinion:
INGRAHAM, P. J.
We all agree that the crucial question in this case is whether the complaint sufficiently alleges that the defendant spoke the words complained of concerning the. plaintiff in her business or calling as a domestic.
Considering the rule now well settled, that on demurrer the complaint must be deemed to allege all that can by fair intendment be .gathered from the language used, it seems to me that the complaint does charge that the defendant spoke these words to the employer of the plaintiff in her business or calling as a domestic. When a person goes to the employer of a woman who is in domestic service, and •says to that employer that the employé "is both drunk and crazy, out .late at night, and a very untidy person," the charge relates directly to the calling of the person so spoken of, and necessarily refers to her in the employment in which she was at that time engaged.
I think, therefore, that the complaint sufficiently alleges that the words were spoken of the plaintiff in her employment or calling, and the judgment should be affirmed with costs, with leave to the defendant to withdraw his demurrer and to answer within 20 days, upon payment of costs in this court and in the court below.
MCLAUGHLIN and DOWLING, JJ., concur.