Livingston v. Cheetham
New York Supreme Court
WOODWORTH, attorney general, for the plaintiff, moved for a struck jury in this cause, on an affidavit stat- " ** ing, that the plaintiff, at the time of the publication of the libel for which this action is brought, was, and now is, Recorder of the city of New-York, and ex officio, a director of the Manhattan Company ; that the libellous publications in question were concerning his conduct in relation to the interests and affairs of the said Company; and that the same were…
Read the full summary
WOODWORTH, attorney general, for the plaintiff, moved for a struck jury in this cause, on an affidavit stat- " ** ing, that the plaintiff, at the time of the publication of the libel for which this action is brought, was, and now is, Recorder of the city of New-York, and ex officio, a director of the Manhattan Company ; that the libellous publications in question were concerning his conduct in relation to the interests and affairs of the said Company; and that the same were false and unfounded.
1Per curiam
In the case of Foot,* who was district attorney, and brought an action for a libel, a struck jury was allowed. The present application is within the reason of that case. The plaintiff is an important officer, and libelled as to his trust in respect to the Manhattan Company, and in consideration of his public station and character, we think the rule ought to be granted.
Rule granted.
1 Caines 498. Spencer v. Sampson, and Foot v. Croswell. In the latter case, on being informed that his affidavit was defective, the plaintiff withdrew his motion, and at a subsequent term, on another affidavit, the…
2Cited by1 opinion
- Jerome v. New York Evening Journal Pub. Co.Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York · 1908