EDITOR'S CORNER. 



PADDY IS OUT OF COURT. 



Pretty much everyone who reads Recrea- 

 tion, and a few who do not read it, know 

 that the Marlin Arms Company brought a 

 libel suit against me in the Superior Court 

 some 2 years ago. I employed the Hon. 

 John S. Wise and his son, H. A. Wise, to 

 defend. They demurred to Marlin's peti- 

 tion on the ground that he had not stated 

 facts sufficient to constitute a cause of ac- 

 tion. Marlin's principal averment in his 

 complaint was that I had written all the 

 articles printed in Recreation during the 

 past 3 or 4 years, criticising Marlin rifles. 

 He knew, as well as he knows he is living, 

 that they were all written by the men 

 whose names were signed to the letters, 

 and that the original letters, as printed in 

 Recreation, are all on file in this office, 

 ready to be produced in court at any time. 

 Still, Paddy has no conscientious scruples 

 against uttering a falsehood, or even against 

 swearing to one. 



The case was carried up to the Supreme 

 Court of the State of New York, where it 

 was argued there by counsel on both sides, 

 and a decision has lately been handed 

 down dismissing Paddy's complaint and 

 saddling the costs in all the lower courts 

 on him. I quote as follows from the opin- 

 ion of the Appellate Division: 



Concededly there is no precedent in the 

 courts of this State for the interference 

 of equity in a case of this character. 

 Hence it becomes necessary to examine 

 the complaint in the light of the estab- 

 lished principles for the purpose of as- 

 certaining whether it states a cause of ac- 

 tion. 



It should be noted, first, that this com- 

 plaint contains no allegation of any state- 

 ment made against the character or con- 

 duct of plaintiff. It hasnot been libeled. 

 The words published in defendant's mag- 

 azine, and for which defendant is re- 

 sponsible whether written by him or an- 

 other, criticise the gun manufactured t>y 

 plaintiff. They do not charge that plain- 

 tiff was guilty of any deceit in vending, 

 or want of skill in manufacturing, the 

 eun. Every statement published and of 

 which complaint is made relates solely 

 to the quality of plaintiff's rifles and their 

 relative desirability as compared with 

 rifles manufactured by others. 



The plaintiff's first excuse # for invok- 

 ing the aid of equity— to avoid a multi- 

 plicity of actions at law— is evidently not 

 well founded, for plaintiff has not only 

 failed to state facts sufficient to consti- 



tute one action at law, but it has affirma- 

 tively stated facts which show that it has 

 not an action at law. In such a situation 

 it goes without sayiner that a court of 

 equity can not be invoked to aid a plain- 

 tiff unless some other ground for its in- 

 terference be shown. 



The constitutional guaranty of freedom 

 of speech and press, which in terms pro- 

 vides that "every citizen may freely 

 speak, write and publish his sentiments 

 on all subjects, being responsible for the 

 abuse of that right ; and no law shall be 

 passed to restrain or abridge the liberty 

 of speech or of the press" (State Con- 

 stitution, Art. i, Sec. 8), has for its only 

 limitations the law of slander and libel. 

 Hitherto freedom of speech and of the 

 press could only be interfered with 

 where the speaker or writer offended 

 against the criminal law or where the 

 words amounted to a slander or libel of 

 a person or corporation or their prop- 

 erty, and the guaranteed right of trial by 

 jury entitled the parties accused of slan- 

 der or libel to have 12 men pass upon 

 the question of their liability to respond 

 in damages therefor and to measure such 

 damages. But the precedent which the 

 plaintiff seeks to establish would open 

 the door for a judge sitting in equity to 

 establish a censorship not only over the 

 past and present conduct of a publisher 

 of a magazine or newspaper, but would 

 authorize such judge by decree to lay 

 down a chart for future guidance in so 

 far as a plaintiff's property rights might 

 seem to require, and, in case of the vio- 

 lation of the provisions of such a decree, 

 the usual course and practice of equity 

 would necessarily be invoked, which 

 would authorize the court to determine 

 whether such published articles were con- 

 trary to the prohibitions of the decree, 

 and, if so found, punishment as for a 

 contempt might follow. Thus a party 

 could be punished for publishing an arti- 

 cle which was not libelous and that, to©, 

 without a trial by jury. 



Our conclusion, r rom a review of the 

 authorities, therefore, is, that all well- 

 considered decisions agree in determin- 

 ing it to be the law that a court of equity 

 has not jurisdiction to grant the relief to 

 secure which this suit was drawn. 



The order of the Appellate Division 

 should be reversed and the judgment of 

 the Special Term affirmed, with costs in 

 all courts. 



Paddy, it's your next move. 



151 



