
    Jane Hussey, Resp’t, v. New York Recorder Company, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed July 26, 1895.)
    
    Pleading—Complaint—Libel.
    A complaint for libel, which sets out the libelous article and then alleges that plaintiff, by reason thereof, was injured and brought into public ridicule and damaged in her profession and' business, is sufficient without connecting her with the article, or showing that her name appeared therein, or alleging her profession or business.
    
      Appeal from an interlocutory judgment, overruling a demurrer to the complaint, interposed on the ground that it did not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action.
    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 Jier sister’s 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 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.”
    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 bv 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). Wherefore, plaintiffs demand judgment against the defendant, in the sum of ten thousand dollars ($10,000), besides the costs of this action.
    Burnett, Stayion & Hagen, for app’lt; Wm. M. Benedict, for resp’t.
   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; 30 St. Re¡). 467, 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 twenty days, on payment of costs. All concur.  