Vol. LXI. No. 2746. 
NEW YORK, SEPTEMBER 13, 1902. 
II PER YEAR 
The American Farm Co. Sues. 
DEMANDS A FORTUNE AS DAMAGES. 
WORDS WORTH $257 EACH. 
The Rural New-Yorker Toes the Mark. 
Last Winter and Spring The R. N.-Y. printed some 
remarks about various companies, which we became 
convinced, were making claims which could not be 
carried out, in an attempt to sell goods and obtain 
money from farmers. As it is a part of our business 
to try to protect farmers from injustice and fraud we 
gave our opinion of these companies in forcible terms 
—though no names were used. The American Farm 
Company, of 
Buffalo, N. Y., 
evidently felt 
that the coat 
we had made 
was a good fit 
for them. At 
any rate, they 
p r o c e e ded to 
put it on in the 
most conspicu¬ 
ous way pos¬ 
sible by bring¬ 
ing suit to re¬ 
cover damages. 
They have 
brought suit for 
$102,100, claim¬ 
ing that The R. 
N.-Y. has in¬ 
jured them to 
that extent. 
At this time 
we merely wish 
to give the facts 
in the case 
without argu¬ 
ment. Readers 
need not fear 
that The R. N.- 
Y. is going to 
run. Our gun is 
well loaded, and 
what we have 
said and done 
has been in an 
honest effort to 
serve and pro¬ 
tect our readers 
and farmers 
gen erally. As 
those who have 
had experience 
in law know, it 
is necessary for the plaintiff to serve on the defendant 
a complaint which sets forth his reasons for bringing 
th$ suit. The defendant answers this in any way he 
sees fit, after which the plaintiff may press the suit 
or not as he thinks his case will warrant. We have 
waited until all these charges and answers have been 
filed before making a statement. Now we give a fair 
synopsis of both charge and answer, which, we be¬ 
lieve, will give our readers a fair idea of the case as 
set forth in its pleadings. 
We wish our readers to understand that this syn¬ 
opsis is given not with any malice toward or intent 
to injure the plaintiff but because this case is typical 
of many, and we simply desire to have our readers 
understand how far we are sometimes forced to go in 
order to make good our guarantee of the reliability 
of our advertisers. 
A Demand for a Fortune. 
The American Farm Company first states that it is 
a legal corporation, and that The R. N.-Y. is also a 
responsible concern. It then quotes sevei’al editorial 
articles which have appeared in The R. N.-Y., also two 
letters written from this office, and claims various 
sums as damages. It claims that these articles were 
“wrongful, libelous, defamatory, false and untrue,” 
and that they were “maliciously published.” Part of 
the damage is because “the plaintiff has been injured 
in its business, reputation and prospects,” and part 
because the article influenced many farmers to refuse 
to take stock in a scheme which the plaintiff was pro¬ 
moting. To save space we summarize these editorials 
and their claimed damaging effect as follows: Edi¬ 
torial of November 30, 1901, $15,950; editorial of De¬ 
cember 14, 1001. $10,000; editorial of February 8, 1902, 
$15,950; editorial of April 5, 1902, $15,000; editorial ot 
April 19, 1902, $15,000; letters written from office, 
$10,200; total amount of damages, $102,100. This is 
the entire case of the plaintiff—all based upon ar¬ 
ticles which stand in print in the columns of The R. 
N.-Y. It will be observed that a high value is placed 
on a word, one article for which damages of $15,950 
are claimed contains 62 words—which means $257 
apiece! 
The Rural New-Yorker Talks Back. 
It is, of course, needless for us to say that The R. 
N.-Y. bears no malice and has no desire to injure any 
reputable business. For nearly 50 years this paper 
has been watching the various breeds of rogues and 
swindlers who deem it their right and privilege to 
fatten on the farmers. We know their ear-marks 
well, and we have driven hundreds out of their illegal 
business. We may safely say that we have done more 
of this than any other agricultural paper, and it has 
come to be a regular part of our business to expose 
fraudulent schemes and protect the farmer. To the 
best of our knowledge and belief the articles objected 
to by the American Farm Company were justified and 
substantially correct, and we repeat that this publica¬ 
tion is made, not for the sake of argument, but mere¬ 
ly to place the matter fairly before our readers, so 
that they may fully understand our position. After 
the customary formal allegations we allege in our 
answer, practically as follows: 
The plaintiff corporation, the American Farm Com¬ 
pany, was pro¬ 
moted chiefly by 
J. W. Woodruff, 
H. A. McCall 
and George A. 
Fries, Woodruff 
being the lead¬ 
ing spirit. Be¬ 
fore this com¬ 
pany was organ- 
i z e d Woodruff 
was president of 
several corpora¬ 
tions, among 
others the Am¬ 
erican Farm 
Fine Stock & 
S e ed Company. 
These corpora¬ 
tions, one after 
another, claimed 
to do about the 
same business 
now claimed for 
the American 
Farm Company. 
Woodruff failed 
in the former 
business, be¬ 
came insolvent, 
and failed to pay 
his debts in full. 
U n s a t i s fled 
judgments 
against him are 
still pending. It 
is our belief that 
he o r g a n i zed 
one new corpor¬ 
ation after an- 
other, ending 
with the Ameri¬ 
can Farm Com¬ 
pany, in order to 
escape payment of his creditors and still continue 
in the same line of business, without meeting debts 
and obligations incurred by former similar corpora¬ 
tions. As one after another of these corporations had 
met with failure it was a fair inference that the last 
one would be like the others. We believe that Wood¬ 
ruff’s plan and scheme was to conduct business under 
one corporation name until large debts and liabilities 
hau been incurred, and then organize a new corpora¬ 
tion—leaving the debts of the former unpaid. 
The American Farm Company was organized on 
August 23, 1900, with an authorized capital of $1,- 
000,000 divided into 20,000 shares at $50 each. This 
capital stock was largely fictitious. It represented no 
real value and never had any. Woodruff, who had 
already made several financial failures, subscribed 
AN AMERICAN FARM HOME WHERE THE RURAL IS READ. Fig. 230. 
