Van Ness v. Hamilton
New York Supreme Court
THIS was an action for a libel. The declaration contained three counts. The first count stated, that the plaintiff now is, and at the time of writing, printing, and publishing, &c., and for a long time before had been, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, and, as such, one of the Council of Revision, &tc.
Read the full summary
THIS was an action for a libel. The declaration contained three counts. The first count stated, that the plaintiff now is, and at the time of writing, printing, and publishing, &c., and for a long time before had been, one of the Judges of the Supreme Court, and, as such, one of the Council of Revision, &tc. That the defendants, well knowing, &c. and falsely and maliciously intending, &c., on the 26th of January, 1820, in a certain newspaper, entitled u The American, ” No. 95., falsely, wickedly, and maliciously, did devise, write, print, and publish, of, and concerning the plaintiff and of…
1Opinion of the Court
Spencer, Ch. J.
delivered the opinion of the Court. It is not requisite to state the declaration or the pleas. Such parts of them as are necessary to be considered, will be noticed. But before I consider the particular objections to the pleas pointed out by the special demurrers, it will be proper to advert to some well-established principles, in relation to pleas in bar, in actions for defamatory words, or libellous charges.
It may, however, be observed, in the outset, that there exists a decided distinction between words spoken, and written slander. To maintain an action for the former cause,…
2Cited by9 opinions
- Triggs v. Sun Printing & Publishing Ass'nNew York Court of Appeals · 1904
- Fry v. BennettThe Superior Court of New York City · 1851
- Fenstermaker v. Tribune Publishing Co.Utah Supreme Court · 1895
- People ex rel. Morris v. EdmondsNew York Supreme Court · 1853
- Barron v. SmithSouth Dakota Supreme Court · 1904
4 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.