
    HUSSEY v. NEW YORK RECORDER CO.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    July 26, 1895.)
    Libel—Sufficiency of Complaint.
    A complaint for libel, which, after setting out the libelous article, alleges that by reason thereof plaintiff was injured in her good name, fame, and credit, and was brought into public ridicule, and suffered great mortification, besides damages to her profession and business, is sufficient, though it does not connect plaintiff with the article, and plaintiff’s name does not appear therein, and her profession or business is not alleged.
    Appeal from special term, Kings county.
    Action by Jane Hussey against the New York Recorder Company for libel. A demurrer to the complaint on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action was overruled, and defendant appeals. Affirmed.
    The complaint, omitting the formal parts, is as follows:
    First. That the defendant is a domestic corporation, doing business as printers, publishers, and proprietors of the newspaper known as the New York Recorder, having its main, office or place of business at No. 15 Spruce street in the city of New York.
    Second. That on the 13th day of December, 1893, the defendant in this action falsely and maliciously published and caused to be published and circulated in the said newspaper the following false, scandalous, malicious, and defamatory libel, to wit:
    “Crazy Triplets—One Sister Takes Another to Bellevue, a Third Visits Them, and All are Declared Lunatics.
    “Susan, Elizabeth, and Minnie Bassett came into this world, practically at the same time, thirty-five years ago. None of them married, and now all have been declared insane. Susan took Elizabeth to Bellevue last Friday, and asked that an inquiry might be made concerning her mental condition. The doctors soon decided that the woman was insane, and, while the examination was going on, Susan acted so strangely that she, too, was detained. She was pronounced a lunatic yesterday. The third sister had been in a Brooklyn hospital, suffering from nervous troubles, and when she heard of her sisters' whereabouts she insisted upon visiting them. She was allowed to do so yesterday, in company with a nurse, and upon arriving at Bellevue she, too, became insane. She was taken back to Brooklyn, and the others were sent to the Blackwell’s Island Asylum.”
    Third. That in a certain part of said libel there was and is contained, among other things, the false, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and libelous matter, following of and concerning the said plaintiff:
    “Crazy Triplets—One Sister Takes Another to Bellevue, a Third Visits Them, and All are Declared Lunatics.
    “Susan, Elizabeth, and Minnie Bassett came into this world, practically at the same time, thirty-five years ago. None of them married, and now all have been declared insane. * * * The third sister had hoen in a Brooklyn hospital, suffering from nervous troubles, and when she heard of her sisters’ whereabouts she insisted upon visiting them. She was allowed to do so yesterday, in company with a nurse, and upon arriving at Bellevue she, too, .became insane. She was taken back to Brooklyn.”
    Fourth. That such scandalous and defamatory matter was and is untrue.
    Fifth. That, as plaintiff is informed and believes, defendant knew the same to be untrue at the time of publishing the same.'
    Sixth. That such scandalous and defamatory matter was so published by defendant recklessly, and without investigation, or adequate investigation, as to the truth of the same, before such publication, and was so published for the sole purpose of sensation, as plaintiff is informed and believes.
    Seventh. That by the publication of the above-mentioned false, wicked, scandalous, malicious, defamatory, and libelous article, the plaintiff has suffered greatly, and has been and still is greatly injured in her good name, fame, and credit; that plaintiff has been brought into public ridicule, scorn, scandal, and disgrace; besides, plaintiff has suffered great mortification, besides damage to plaintiff’s profession and business,—in all to plaintiff’s damage ten thousand dollars @10,000). n
    Wherefore, plaintiff demands judgment against the defendant in the sum of ten thousand dollars @10,000), besides the costs of this action.
    Argued before Brown, P. J., and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
    Burnett, Stayton & Hagen, for appellant.
    Wm. M. Benedict, for respondent.
   PRATT, J.

I entertain no doubt of the propriety of the action of the learned trial judge in overruling this demurrer. The case of Moore v. Francis, 121 N. Y. 199, 23 N. E. 1127, so much relied on by appellant, is an authority against it. We think the complaint states a plain cause of action for libel. We fail to find in the opinion in that case the words apparently quoted in defendant’s points. Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to defendant to answer within 20 days, on payment of costs. All concur.  