People v. Sherman

• Citation: 103 N.Y. 513,9 N.E. 178
• Parties: PEOPLE v. SHERMAN and others.
• Decision Date: 23 November 1886
• Court: New York Court of Appeals

103 N.Y. 513

9 N.E. 178

PEOPLE

v.SHERMAN and others.

Court of Appeals of New York.

November 23, 1886.

Indictment for libel. Defendants appeal.

N. C. Moak, for appellants.

Chas. E. Patterson, for respondent.

MILLER, J.

The defendants were convicted of participation in the publication of a libel against one Sheary. The alleged libelous article was published in a newspaper printed by a corporation, with which all the defendants were connected in some capacity. Upon the trial, proof was given to establish that the libelous article in question was written by one Lowery; that it was published in the first edition of the newspaper in question; that upon its perusal immediately after the printing of the newspaper, a question was made as to the truth of the charges contained in the article published, which related to the disbursement of money for street cleaning purposes in connection with the comptroller's office in the city of Troy, and thereupon said Lowery and one Hennessey were sent to the comptroller's office to ascertain if the charges in the printed article were true. They reported that the same were false, and an article was written by Hennessey, in season for the second edition, containing a retraction, which defendants declined to publish, and issued the second edition, which contained said libelous article as previously published.

The testimony of Hennessey and Lowery, in regard to their going to the comptroller's office, was contradicted by the defendants, and each of them denied any knowledge of the libelous article until after it had been published in the second edition of the newspaper. The prosecution then called as a witness one De Freest, a clerk in the comptroller's office, who testified that, between 3 and 4 o'clock on the day in question, Hennessey and Lowery came to the office of the comptroller, and looked over the books. The evidence was confined to this single fact. The defendant's counsel objected to the evidence, upon the ground, among others, that it was not competent for the people to corroborate the alleged truthfulness of the witnesses, who had previously testified as to the same fact, by provingthat a fact, which they stated to have occurred in the absence of the defendants, or either of them, was true. The objection was overruled, and the defendants separately excepted to the ruling of the judge.

We think there was no error in the admission of the evidence objected to. Hennessey had sworn that the defendants, with the exception of Sherman, held a meetin, after he and Lowery had been to the comptroller's office, and notified them that the printed article was untrue. The testimony objected to and introduced corroborated Hennessey's evidence. The evidence previously introduced tended to establish that all the defendants, with the exception of Sherman, had knowledge of the sending of Lowery and Hennessey to...