Crashley v. Press Pub. Co.

• Decision Date: 14 June 1904
• Citation: 179 N.Y. 27,71 N.E. 258
• Parties: CRASHLEY v. PRESS PUB. CO. et al.
• Court: New York Court of Appeals Court of Appeals

179 N.Y. 27

71 N.E. 258

CRASHLEY

v.PRESS PUB. CO. et al.

Court of Appeals of New York.

June 14, 1904.

Appeal from Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.

Action by John Crashley against the Press Publishing Company and others. From a judgment of the Appellate Division (77 N. Y. Supp. 711) affirming a judgment in favor of defendants, plaintiff appeals. Affirmed.

The action was brought to recover damages of the defendants for the publication of an article in the World, a daily newspaper published in the city of New York, which the plaintiff alleges to have been libelous. The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was a subject of the queen of England, and was not a resident of the state of New York, but that, at the time of the publication of the article complained of, he was a resident of Rio de Janeiro, in Brazil, South America. The article is one which purports to have been written and sent to the newspaper in 1894 by one of its correspondents in Rio de Janeiro, and makes reference to a ‘naval war’ or revolt which had taken place. It states that ‘the headquarters of the revolution were in a small boatshop in the Rua Ouvidor, kept by a certain Crashley, an Englishman of more or less indifferent repute.’ It states that ‘Crashley's ‘right bower’ was knighted by the Emperor, and longed for the knighted by he Emperor, and longed for the restoration of the empire, while his ‘left bower’ was a certain Captain Jones, the harborman for the Lamport & Holt English Steamship Company.' It states that Da Gama, the insurgent leader, had set about raising money in aid of the revolt, and had ‘issued a circular to the effect that, in the event of the revolt's success, the new government would turn the Brazilian National Railway, which is owned by the government, and is one of its largest sources of revenue, into a stock corporation, and issue stock in payment of all loans contracted by the insurgents'; that ‘he agreed, through his agents, the Bank of Rio de Janeiro, which existed only in name, but which was relly the Crashley crowd, to issue in return for the payment of gold in any sum, from £1 up, a receipt which would entitle the holder to shares of stock equal in value to three times the amount contributed to the rebel funds'; that ‘thousands of the English and Portuguese bit at the tempting bait; gold poured into the treasury. Nearly every Englishman, lishman, and the majority of the Portuguese from the humblest bank clerks to the capitalists, invested in the enterprise, which, through the plausible rumors circulated by the Crashley crowd, seemed sure of success.’ The article states that, provisions and ammunition getting low, the conspirators started in with renewed energy, and the ‘Crashley mill was set to work grinding out more lies against the government’; that the English minister helped along the conspiracy, and, ‘after every fresh lie from Crashley's, would call a meeting of the diplomatic corps, and beg his confreres to urge upon their governments the recognition of Da Gama as a belligerent.’ These are the statements which directly refer to or affect the plaintiff. The complaint alleged ‘that the said publication in said newspaper concerns the plaintiff herein, in that, among other reasons, the persons referred to in the statement ‘that the headquarters of the revolution were in a small boatshop in the Rua Ouvidor kept by a certain Crashley, an Eng lishman of more or less indifferent repute, is especially meant to and is intended to identify the plaintiff herein, and that, among other reasons, the said plaintiff at the time of said publication was the only Crashley having a shop in Rua Ouvidor, referred to in said publication, and also in that, among other things, the ‘Crashley crowd’ and the ‘Crashley mill,’ mentioned throughout the said publication, are also meant to refer to and are intended to identify the plaintiff herein.' The complaint alleged the falsity of the statements as to his connection with the revolution, that the publication subjected him ‘to insult and annoyance’ and that ‘at different times and places' he was ‘repeatedly insulted, to his great annoyance and humiliation.’ It was alleged ‘that by reason of the said publication * * * this plaintiff has been arrested and charged with the facts alleged against him in said publication,’ and ‘remained under arrest for the space of seven days, and was debarred from communicating with any one, and by reason of the said publication * * * the place of business of this plaintiff has also been searched by the police authorities of said city of Rio de Janeiro, and this plaintiff'ss only partner, Henry Hardwick, was also arrested, and remained under arrest for seven days; and by reason of said search, and of this plaintiff's and his partner's arrest, the said business of this plaintiff remained in the hands of mere clerks, unacquainted with the management of said business, wherefore his business was damaged and greatly suffered.’ When the case was reached for trial, upon the opening by the plaintiff's counsel, the complaint was dismissed; the trial judge holding that the allegations of the complaint were insufficient to establish that the publication was libelous. Upon appeal the Appellate Division, in the First...