
    Henry C. Henderson, App’lt, v. The Commercial Advertisers Association, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 13, 1887.)
    
    Libel—Complaint—Sufficiency of—Code Civ. Pbo., § 535.
    In an action for libel the alleged libelous matter published by defendant was- “A month ago Mr. McGrory refused as supervisor to approve Mr. Mullin’s bond * * * Counselor Henderson, acting for Mullin, took the matter to the board of supervisors. In the meantime counselor Keogh investigated matters for McGrory and learned that ten of the sureties did not know they were on the bond, although Henry C. Henderson, notary public, had acknowledged them as sureties.” The plaintiff was a lawyer and notary public, and the words are charged to have been published concerning him. On demurrer on the ground that the complaint did not state a cause of action. Held, that it was not necessary to set forth extrinsic facts showing the application to the plaintiff. That there was a good cause of action stated.
    Appeal from an order and interlocutory judgment entered at special term held in Westchester county sustaining defendant’s demurrer to the complaint.
    
      Tracy & Reddy, for app’lt; Charles O. Brewster, Jr, for resp’t.
   Barnard, P. J.

The complaint sets forth two causes of action for libel. The first is in these words:

“ A month ago Mr. McGrory refused as supervisor to approve Mr. Muhin’s bond. Counselor Henderson, acting for Mullin, took the motion to the board of supervisors. In the meantime Counselor Keogh investigated matters for Mr. McGrory and learned that ten of the sureties did not. know they were on the bond, although Henry 0. Henderson, notary public, had acknowledged them as sureties.”

The plaintiff is a lawyer and notary public," and the words_ are charged to have been published concerning him. This is a good cause of action. It is not necessary to set forth extrinsic facts showing the application to plaintiff (Code, 535), and none are needed to show the words to be capable of a libelous meaning in themselves. None other seems possible. A charge is made that a notary public certified the acknowledgments of ten persons as having been taken by him to a bond, and they, the persons purporting to sign it, did not know that their names were on the bond. If the language is capable of two interpretations, the question is one for a jury. Sanderson v. Caldwell, 45 N. Y., 398.

The second cause of action is not so clear. The words aver that the plaintiff fired at one Allen wüth a pistol to prevent Allen shooting him. The question is not noticed in this appeal, or if the conclusion is right upon the first •count, the demurrer to the whole complaint should have keen overruled. Hale v. The Omaha National Bank, 49 N. Y., 627.

The judgment should, therefore, be reversed, with leave to defendant to answer in twenty days, costs to abide event.

Pratt, J., concurs; Dykman, J., not sitting.  