Cruikshank v. Press Publishing Co.
New York Supreme Court
Action for libel. Motion by the plaintiff to strike out parts of the answer as irrelevant and redundant. The body of the complaint is as follows: “ 2. That on or about October 18th, 1898, the defendant, which is the publisher and proprietor of a newspaper of large circulation known as ‘The World,' printed and published in said newspaper, the following language of and concerning the plaintiff, to-wit: ‘ The trial of the divorce suit brought by Maud Cruikshank against Dr.…
Read the full summary
Action for libel. Motion by the plaintiff to strike out parts of the answer as irrelevant and redundant. The body of the complaint is as follows: “ 2. That on or about October 18th, 1898, the defendant, which is the publisher and proprietor of a newspaper of large circulation known as ‘The World,' printed and published in said newspaper, the following language of and concerning the plaintiff, to-wit: ‘ The trial of the divorce suit brought by Maud Cruikshank against Dr. William J. Cruikshank was before Justice Johnson in the Supreme Court, Brooklyn, yesterday. * * * In her complaint Mrs.…
1Opinion of the Court
Gaynor, J.:
This answer (set out above in full) is a sample of the unscientific and degenerate pleadings which have grown to-be common in this part of the State, to the great perplexity and annoyance of trial judges. It takes a tedious perusal of them at the trial to find out what they mean, or, as is most usual, that they mean nothing.
The complaint is a scientific and' precise pleading in substance that the defendant falsely published of the plaintiff that in the trial of a divorce action between him and his wife, flashlight photographs were introduced which showed the plaintiff and a woman…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Flack v. O'BrienNew York Supreme Court · 1897
- Flechter v. JonesNew York Supreme Court · 1892
- Green v. BrownNew York Supreme Court · 1898
- von Hagen v. Waterbury Manufacturing Co.New York Supreme Court · 1898
3Cited by11 opinions
- Stroock Plush Co. v. TalcottAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908
- Carter v. Eighth Ward BankNew York Supreme Court · 1900
- Durst v. Brooklyn Heights RailroadNew York Supreme Court · 1900
- Staten Island Midland Railroad v. HinchcliffeNew York Supreme Court · 1901
- Dinkelspiel v. New York Evening Journal Public Co.New York Supreme Court · 1903
6 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.