Van Ingen v. Mail & Express Pub. Co.
Decision Date | 07 June 1898 |
Citation | 156 N.Y. 376,50 N.E. 979 |
Parties | VAN INGEN v. MAIL AND EXPRESS PUB. CO. |
Court | New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from common pleas of New York city and county, general term.
Action by Edward H. Van Ingen against the Mail and Express Publishing Company. From a judgment of the general term (35 N. Y. Supp. 838) affirming a judgment for plaintiff on the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals. Affirmed.
The action was brought to recover damages for the publication of an alleged libelous article in the Mail and Express on the evening of the 7th day of November, 1892. The article reads as follows:
‘British Gold to Help Cleveland.
‘Democrats and Their English Allies Attempt to Purchase Votes-Americans will Resent the Insult.
‘Not the First Time that the Claimant has Appealed to His Free-Trade Friends across the Sea to Come to His Assistance-The Workingmen will Give Their Answer to This Diabolical Outrage To-Morrow-The Closing Days of a Spirited Campaign.
‘The Fund Estimated.
‘Republican Managers not Alarmed.
In the course of the trial there were admitted in evidence three different articles published, respectively, on the 7th day of November, 1892, in the Morning Advertiser, the New York Recorder, and the New York Press. The article published in the Morning Advertiser reads as follows:
‘British Gold!-From a Quarter to Half a Million Dollars Raised in London to Help Cleveland-The Money Already Here-E. H. Van Ingen, a New York Merchant, is Said to be at the Head of the Movement-Ochiltree Confirms It-Other Gentlemen also Say English Exporters are Doing All They can for Grover-To Kill the Tariff Bill-English Manufacturers and American Importers Want to Injure Our Industries.
‘(By Cable to the Morning Advertiser.)
‘London, Nov. 6.-It became known here yesterday that an enormous corruption fund had been raised among the English exporters, manufacturers, and merchants who are interested in the removal of the McKinley tariff, and that it had already been forwarded to the Democratic general committee in New York, to be used for the purpose of buying votes, and other dishonorable expedients to bring about the election of Mr. Cleveland. The head of the movement is said to be E. H. Van Ingen, of the New York importing house of E. H. Van Ingen & Co., of 160 Fifth avenue. Mr. Van Ingen, when seen this evening, was very much disturbed. He positively refused to be interviewed on the subject, and just as positively refused to deny the story. Failing to draw Mr. Van Ingen from his reserve, the reporter broached the matter to another gentleman holding a responsible position in the firm, who verified the story, and referred to several well-known Americans in London from whom full information on the matter could be derived. At the same time the gentleman stated that the fund amounted to between $250,000 and $500,000, and was already in the hands of the Democratic committee.
‘Tom Ochiltree Heard of the Fund.
‘Ex-Congressman Ochiltree was also seen, and asked if he knew anything of the matter. ‘I know Van Ingen,’ he said.
‘Captain Thompson's Statement.
‘Another gentleman to whom the reporter was referred is Captain Thompson, the London representative of the Equitable Assurance Society, and formerly in command of the steamship Brittannic. He said: ‘Mr. Van Ingen is well known to me, and I know him to be eagerly working for Mr. Cleveland's election, because he thinks that his election would be greatly beneficial to the British manufacturing interests, with which he is closely associated. He is a man who could put his hands deeply into his pockets, because he is very rich, and I have reason to believe he has done so; and I know he has induced a large number of English exporters and manufacturers to do likewise. The feeling among the British business men is entirely in Mr. Cleveland's favor. For instance, John Albert Bright, son of the late John Bright, said to me recently, ‘I hope that Cleveland will be elected, because then I shall get some free ships into America.’'
‘More Proofs of the Scheme.
‘An American merchant doing business in this city, who desires to have his name remain unknown unless his statement is questioned, said: ‘Do you think a corruption fund has been provided by English merchants for Cleveland's election?’ asked the reporter. ‘I am certain of it. In fact, I have reason to believe that it has existed for some time, although the English importers are naturally extremely reticent on the subject, lest it should leak out, and prove the means of Cleveland's overthrow instead of his election.’'
The articles published in the other papers are substantially the same as the foregoing. The jury found a verdict for the plaintiff of $4,000.
William Irwin, for appellant.
Walter S. Logan, for respondent.
MARTIN, J. (after stating the facts).
The decision of this case turns upon the question of the admissibility of evidences of the previous publication of articles by the New York morning papers, which mentioned the plaintiff as the guilty party, and who, in the publication by the defendant which related to the same subject, was described as ‘the London head...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Cook v. East Shore Newspapers, Inc.
...crime of bribery is libelous per se. People v. Fuller, 238 Ill. 116, 87 N.E. 336;Rearick v. Wilcox, 81 Ill. 77;Van Ingen v. Mail, etc., Publishing Co., 156 N.Y. 376, 50 N.E. 979;Randall v. Evening News Ass'n, 79 Mich. 266, 44 N.W. 783,7 L.R.A. 309;Robbins v. Treadway, 2 J. J. Marsh., Ky., 5......
-
Tilles v. Pulitzer Publishing Company
...... defective. Havemeyer v. Fuller, 60 How. Prac. 320;. Pub. Co. v. Journal Co., 108 Mo.App. 232; Legg. v. Dunleavy, 80 Mo. 558; ...Where. words relate to certain acts, and merely express an opinion. as to the legal effect of the acts referred to, they are not. ...Star, 209 Mo. 79; Russell. v. Kelly, 44 Cal. 641; Van Dugen v. Mail & Exp. Co., 156 N.Y. 376. A plea of justification must be as. broad as ......
-
Foltz v. News Syndicate Co.
...Co., Inc., 7 Cir., 186 F.2d 1017; Nunnally v. New Yorker Staats Zeitung, 111 App.Div. 482, 97 N.Y.S. 911. 6 Van Ingen v. Mail & Express Pub. Co., 156 N.Y. 376, 50 N.E. 979. 7 Van Ingen v. Mail & Express Pub. Co., 14 Misc. 326, 329, 35 N.Y.S. 838, 840; Stokes v. Morning Journal Ass'n, 66 App......
-
Ward Telecommunications & Computer Services, Inc. v. State, 57961
...could and did understand that he was the person referred to. 34 N.Y.Jur., Libel and Slander, § 55. See, VanIngen v. Mail and Express Publishing Co., 156 N.Y. 376, 386, 50 N.E. 979, 981; Rogow, Inc. v. Ally, Inc., 29 A.D.2d 423, 426, 288 N.Y.S.2d 556, 561--562; Michaels v. Gannett Co., Inc.,......