47o 
THE RURAL NEW-YORKER. 
of and coneeraing plaintiff, a certain false, scandalous, 
malicious and defamatory libel, in which was contained 
amongst ether things, the false, scandalous, malicious, de¬ 
famatory and libelous matter following of and concerning 
this plaintiff, that is to say : 
“ John Lewis Childs”—thereby meaning this plaintiff— 
“ pleasantly alluded to in last week’s issue of Thk Rural, 
sajs in The American Florist, that he spent last spring 
for advertising nearly $15,000. He uses the papers known 
as ‘ cooperatives ’ to a considerable extent. He says: ‘We 
have never been able to get satisfactory results from the 
so-called agricultural papers. There are, of course, ex¬ 
ceptions, but as a class we have not been pleased with 
them. This seems strange, as one would naturally sup¬ 
pose them to be excellent, circulating as they do among 
the class of people the seedsman desires to reach. We can 
account for it only that these papers, as a rule, have very 
small circulations, and charge the advertiser exceedingly 
high rates.’ It is well known that the patrons of cooper¬ 
ative papers are among the most illiterate and gullible of 
the reading population. We should suppose that Mr. 
Childs ”—meaning this plaintiff—“ would naturally frater¬ 
nize with birds of that feather.” Thereby meaning and in¬ 
tending to have it understood and believed that this plain¬ 
tiff would prefer that his advertisement should come 
principally before “ the most illiterate and gullible of the 
reading population,” and “ would naturally fraternize 
with birds of that feather,” in order that he might mis¬ 
lead, cheat, defraud and deceive them by his advertise¬ 
ments in the papers and publications referred to, and cheat 
and defraud them into the purchase and procuring from 
him of his productions so as aforesaid grown, raised, pro¬ 
duced and sold by him. 
And plaintiff avers that in the last aforesaid publication 
the defendant did not quote and reprint all the article 
and communication published in the said The American 
Florist, and referred and alluded.to in said publication, so 
as aforesaid made by defendant, but took such part or por¬ 
tion thereof as defendant desired to criticise, and to make 
the above quoted scandalous, wicked and malicious pub¬ 
lication, reference, statement and innuendo as against 
this plaintiff, to which said communication so published 
in The American Florist to be produced upon the trial of 
this action plaintiff hereby refers. 
V. —That by moans of said publications and said griev¬ 
ances by the defendant plaintiff has been and still is greatly 
injured in his good name, fame, reputation and credit, to 
his damage in the sum of $50,000. 
VI. —That by means of said publications and grievances 
plaintiff has also been and still is greatly injured in and 
about 'his said business, and has suffered pecuniary loss 
thereby to the amount of $25,000. 
Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against the de¬ 
fendant in the said sum of $75,000 damages besides the 
costs of this action. _ 
The R. N.-Y.’s Answer to Mr. Childs. 
SUPREME COURT, 
City and County of Nkw York. 
John Lewis Childs 
vs. 
The Rural Publishing Co. 
The defendant, answering the complaint of the plaintiff, 
alleges as follows: 
First.— It admits the allegations in the complaint in re¬ 
gard to the nature of the business in which the plaintiff is 
engaged, but denies that it has any knowledge or informa¬ 
tion sufficient to form a belief as to whether or not he has 
Invested $250,000 therein. 
Second.— It admits the allegations contained in the 
paragraph of complaint marked “ II.” 
Third.— It admits the publication by the defendant of 
the article set forth in the third paragraph or subdivision 
of the first cause of action in the complaint, but denies 
that it was published with the intention or motive set 
forth in the complaint, or falsely, wickedly or maliciously; 
and, on the contrary, alleges that the same was published 
without malice and from good motives and for justifiable 
ends ; and it denies that said article was a false, scandal¬ 
ous, malicious or defamatory libel, or that it contained 
any false, scandalous, malicious or defamatory or libelous 
matter. 
Fourth.— And the defendant, further answering, says 
that the paper called The Rural New-Yorker is princi¬ 
pally devoted to the interests of those who cultivate the 
eaith fora livelihood, and that one of its principal objects, 
in addition to teaching how and what to cultivate, is to 
warn and protect its patrons against frauds that may be 
practiced upon the inexperienced and unsuspecting, and 
thereby protect them from imposition and loss. That 
while very many of those who are engaged in supplying 
the needs of those who cultivate the earth for a livelihood 
are honest and reliable men, there are those engaged in 
such business, who to effect the sales of their property, 
advertise their articles in extravagant and unwarrantable 
terms and language (which are not justified by the merits 
of the articles so offered and sold to the public) as to cause 
great disappointment and pecuniary loss to the purchasers 
thereof; that such disappointmenta and losses and com¬ 
plaints growing out of the same had become so very com¬ 
mon that The Rural New-Yorker regarded it as its 
duty, and in keeping with the promises it had made to its 
readers, to combat such practices through its columns, and 
therefore published the article set forth in the first cause 
of action in the complaint, for the purpose of exposing 
some of the exaggerated and unwarranted statement i and 
representations which the plaintiff had habitually indulged 
in in regard to some of the articles which he offered for sale 
to the public. 
Fifth.— And the defendant, further answering, and in 
justification of the alleged libel set forth in the complaint, 
repeats and alleges that the said article was published with 
good motives and for justifiable ends, and further alleges 
that each and every statement therein contained is true, 
and each and every inference or conclusion therein ex¬ 
pressed Is a just and fair inference and conclusion from 
the facts set forth therein. And In furtherance of such 
justification, this defendant alleges as follows with re¬ 
spect to the following portions of said alleged libel, to wit: 
“ He may smile at the credulity of the public that has¬ 
tens to buy his specialties, many of which, though dis¬ 
guised by elaborate and cunning phrase, are really as old 
as the hills. Let us say that a careful examination of 
this masterpiece of captivating assumption reveals that 
the regular lists are simply those which are in plain 
language presented in other catalogues as the standard 
varieties of the times, while many of his alleged novelties 
are scarcely less than make-believes.” 
That it is true that some of the articles which the plain¬ 
tiff advertised in his circular for sale as specialties, were 
not specialties within the meaning of the term used Dy 
the plaintiff, but were so disguised by elaborate and 
cunniDg phrase as to deceive purchasers and effect 
sales thereof. That it is true that the regular lists in the 
published catalogues of the plaintiff are those which are 
in plain language presented in catalogues of other dealers 
as the standard varieties of the times, and it is also true 
that some of the articles described in the catalogue of the 
plaintiff as novelties are not novelties, and are well-known 
plants under other names, as stated in the said alleged libel¬ 
ous article. That such new names were given to said plants 
by the plaintiff for the purpose of deceiving those who 
could be induced to buy them, and that many persons 
we e deceived thereby, and to their damage paid more for 
the plants so purchased than they could have been pur¬ 
chased for elsewhere bearing their original names. 
Sixth.—A nd as to the following part of the alleged libel, 
namely: 
‘‘The Rural New-Yorker is working for the public 
good—that Is to say, in the interests of those who buy 
plants or seeds, whether for pleasure, for the market or 
for a living. It is waging a war against the gross exagger¬ 
ations of picture and text that are seen in too many of the 
catalogues that are issued by seedsmen and nurserymen 
who are conducting their business for quick profits and 
for an easy fortune, regardless of the interests of their 
innocent patrons.” 
This defendant says that it is true, as stated in the 
alleged libel, that The Rural New-Yorker was waging 
a war against the gross exaggerations of picture and text 
which are seen in some of the catilogues of seedsmen and 
nurserymen, and did thereby mean to be understood and 
to have it believed that the said John Lewis Childs, the 
plaintiff, was conducting his business in some respects 
regardless of the interests of his patrons and of the public 
generally, and with the purpose and intent of misleading 
them and obtaining quick profits and an easy fortune, by 
untrue, incorrect and misleading pictures and texts in his 
said catalogue, and that on the trial of this action the defen¬ 
dant will prove that said catalogue issued by the plaintiff 
to the public, and soliciting its patronage, did contain 
untrue, incorrect, deceptive and misleading pictures and 
texts, as alleged in the said article set forth in the com¬ 
plaint, and that a few of the many instances of gross ex¬ 
aggeration and misleading pictures and texts referred to 
in the said alleged libelous article, are as follows: 
(a) The exaggerated und untruthful picture of a straw¬ 
berry at page five of the new catalogue of the plaintiff for 
1889, under the head, “ Grand Specialties and Novelties ” 
representing a berry therein called, “ The New Strawberry 
—the First Season.” Another exaggerated and untruthful 
picture of the same berry in the catalogue of the plaintiff 
for the year 1890, at page 106. 
In the catalogue of 1889, the said berry is fraudulently 
advertised as “ the most valuable sort ever introduced, as 
it fruits at once,” and also as “ the best and sweetest large 
berry.” In the catalogue of 1890, the same berry is falsely 
represented by another exaggerated and untruthful pic¬ 
ture as “ bearing a good crop immediately after planting,” 
and as the “ most valuable sort ever introduced, as it fruits 
at once.” 
The defendant shows to the court that the presentations 
thus made were untrue, and were made for the purpose of 
deceiving the public; for the defendant alleges that the 
said berry was not new, nor was it its first season; that it 
was a comparatively old berry, and was known among 
nurserymen and sold undtr the name of the “ Gandy ” for 
25 and 50 cents per dozen plants; that the plaintiff ob¬ 
tained his plants at Little Silver, New Jersey, and there¬ 
after changed its name from the “ Gandy ” to “ The New 
Strawberry—the First Season,” and then fraudulently ad¬ 
vertised it uLder its new name, accompanied by an extrav¬ 
agant and misleading picture of it at page five of his cata¬ 
logue for 1889, and at a price largely in excess of what it 
had previously brought under the name of the “ Gandy; ” 
that this change of name was made, and the extravagant 
and misleading picture of the plant published, for the 
fraudulent purpose of inducing purchasers to believe, and 
they did believe, that said plants were those of a new 
berry, and thereby effect sales thereof. 
(b) . The picture contained in the catalogue of the plain¬ 
tiff for the year 1890, at page 107, and headed “ Grand 
Specialties,” and pretending to represent what is there 
called “Ctiilds’s Ever-bearing Tree Blackberry.” This 
picture falsely represents said blackberry as a ‘‘thornless 
tree,” and as bearing “ the largest and finest-flavored 
fruit,” and “ the most prolific.” Whereas it is not a tree, 
because its canes are biennial; nor is it one of the most 
desirable varieties, as its canes are thickly studded with 
JUNE 20 
piercing thorns, which detract from its value ; nor is said 
berry ever bearing, as there represented, for it does not 
fruit as early as some other kinds of blackberry, nor does 
it continue bearing later than other well known varieties 
of the same fruit. It was cultivated in the Rural New- 
Yorker Experiment Grounds in October, 1885, under the 
name of the “ Topsey.” 
The defendant shows to the Court that the said repre¬ 
sentations thus made were not true, and were made with 
the fraudulent purpose of inducing purchasers to buy the 
plants thus offered for sale by the plaintiff. 
(c) . That the picture contained in said catalogue for 
1890, as appears therein at page 108, called ‘‘Crandall Tree 
Currant,” falsely represents the said shrub as a tree, and 
also the size of the currant or fruit growing thereon, and 
was published for the purpose of deceiving the public and 
making gains thereby; that the said so-called tree is not a 
tree, but a oush, and does not grow to the size or bear 
fruit as abundantly as is therein represented ; that said 
picture is a highly exaggerated one, and was inserted in 
said catalogue for the purpose of deceiving the public and 
effecting sales thereof. 
(d) . The picture and description of the so called “Childs's 
Japanese Wineberry,” contained in the catalogue of the 
plaintiff for the year 1890, in which it was advertised as 
follows; “Childs’s Great Japanese Wineberry.—We offer 
this entirely new, distinct and valuable berry, with the 
feeling that it is only once in a lifetime that a florist can 
give to the world a plant of so much novelty, beauty and 
usefulness. All things combined, it is the most novel and 
valuable article we ever introduced, and it will prove a 
benefit to mankind from now to eternity.” Again, he 
falsely stated in his catalogue aforesaid that he paid the 
enormous price of $1,000 per plant for said so called wine¬ 
berry. Again, he falsely represented it as making the 
finest quality of wine, and as superior to other berries, 
and that it was the most prolific berry known, and that he 
was glad to pay $1,000 per plant for it. 
The defendant alleges that tne so-called “ Childs’s Great 
Japanese Wineberry ” was not an entirely new, distinct 
and valuable berry, as represented, nor was it the most 
novel and valuable article ever introduced by him. The 
defendant alleges that it was introduced in this country 
many years ago, and has since been found in the collec¬ 
tions of several gentlemen residing therein, and was 
known as the Rubus Phamicolasius ; nor did the plaintiff 
pay $1,000 per plant for the same. The plants of the same 
berry were offered for sale in the catalogue of Ellwanger 
& Barry, well-known nurserymen, of Rochester, N. Y., 
since the year 1881, at 35 cents per plant. 
Seventh. —And as to the following parts of the alleged 
libel, the defendant alleges that each and every statement 
therein contained is true, and each and every inference 
and conclusion justified by the facts, to wit: 
“ From careful investigation, The Rural New-Yorker 
assumed a year and more ago that John Lewis Childs was 
with rare shrewdness and ability imposing on those who 
look to horticultural and farm papers for guidance in 
such matters. It took Mr. Childs to task, first in a mild 
way, then with more seriousness, and finally, in the face 
of an arrogant assumption on his part, in dead earnest. 
Though the proof offered of his trickery was ample, not 
one of our brother contemporaries joined us in condemn¬ 
ing him. 
“ His catalogue of 189L is no less open to condemnation 
than its 1890 predecessor. Its 125 pages are alive with 
superlative, wily exaggerations, that, while sickening to 
the experienced gardener, will deceive the confiding mass 
of those who, influenced by their love of the new, the 
wonderful and the beautiful, and unguarded by repeated 
disappointments which the experienced may have under¬ 
gone, will order confidingly and hopefully of the wonders 
so glowingly set forth. 
“ It will be remembered that The Rural New Yorker 
exposed the falsity of several of the claims which he made 
in regard to what he was pleased to call * Childs’s New Great 
Japanese Wineberry.’ In his new catalogue, he has mod¬ 
erated some of his claims of necessity, but he has put forth 
others equally false, not to be moderated until, if at all, 
he may deem it wise to do so. For example, he now says 
that he paid $1,000 for the variety, not $1,000 for each 
plant, as previously stated. 
“ He admits that it is a variety of the Rubus Phuenico- 
lasius, and that a few ‘ scraggly specimens ’ were grow¬ 
ing in this country when he made his purchase; but he 
adds, and herein we see the man’s persistent disregard for 
truth, that ‘these previously existing plants were’ entirely 
worthless as a fruit.’ Again he says, ‘ it cannot compare 
with the true seedling variety.’ Mr. Childs admits 
obliviously, without doubt, in a previous paragraph, that 
his plants were grown, not from one seed, but from many 
seeds, sent from Japan by Prof. Georgeson, and his plants 
were propagated from these seedlings. He further ignores 
the fact that a fruiting branch sent to the writer by 
Ellwanger & Barry bore as many berries, and berries of as 
large a size and of as good quality as did the plants he 
himself sent to the Rural Grounds, or authprized Mr. 
Lovett to send. In his 1890 catalogue he says, ‘ Strong, 
well-rooted plants, $1 each; six for $5. This price will 
probably stand for two or three years, and no reduction 
will be made on any account.’ In this year’s catalogue, 
his price is given thus: ‘ Strong and vigorous plants, 50 
cents each, or $5 per dozen.’ 
“ If anything further were needed to prove that Mr. 
Childs does not care a rap for his good name, if, to secure 
it, his sales were to be lessened, we may mention the fact 
that he remarked to several mutual acquaintances that 
The Rural New Yorker’s condemnation of his Wine¬ 
berry was the best advertisement he ever had ! Well, Mr. 
Childs, let us see just how long this sort of advertising 
will pay you I The Wineberry is really a plant of merit, 
and The Rural New-Yorker did not spare its praise. 
