
    Matthew Marx, Resp’t, v. The Press Publishing Company, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department,
    
    
      Filed December 8, 1890.)
    
    1. Libel—Proof of publication.
    Proof that defendant is a corporation organized to print and publish newspapers, etc., and that the paper in which the alleged libel was printed was published at the place of business of defendant is sufficient to put the defendant on its' defense, and to justify a finding that defendant published the libel.
    
      .2. Same—Justification—Malice.
    The answer set up the truth of the matter contained in the alleged libelous article. Defendant asked the court to charge that there was no evidence that defendant was influenced by actual malice in publishing its report of this judicial proceeding, if the same was fair and true The court replied: “ So charged; other than the justification of the article and its contents.” Held, no error.
    
      (Orwikslumk v. Gordo >, 118 IT, Y., 178; 28 IT. Y. State Rep., 784, followed.)
    Appeal from judgment in favor of plaintiff, entered upon a verdict.
    This is an action for libel, brought against the defendant for the alleged publication by it of an article in the New York World, purporting to be an account of a judicial proceeding, to which the plaintiff was a party, before a police justice in Long Island City.
    The gist of the alleged libel is contained in the head-lines, that the plaintiff has been accused in court of receiving money belonging to his client, and failing to pay it over to her.
    The action was brought nearly two years after the alleged publication of the libel, and the defenses pleaded were: first, a general denial; second, a plea of privilege; third, a plea of partial justification ; and fourth, a plea in mitigation of damages.
    The case came on for trial before Presiding Justice Barnard and a jury, in April, 1890, and the trial resulted in. a verdict for $1,000 in favor of the plaintiff. A motion for a new trial was made and denied, and from the order denying the same and the judgment entered upon the verdict this appeal is taken, and a new trial is asked for on the ground that the justice presiding at the trial erred in refusing to dismiss the compl&int at the close of the plaintiff’s case and at the close of the entire case, and also erred in charging the jury that the justification by the defendant of the alleged libel and its contents was evidence that the defendant was influenced by actual malice in publishing said alleged libel.
    
      Be Lancey Nicoll, for app’lt; S. B. Noble {A. N. Weller, of counsel), for resp’t
   Dykman, J.

This is an action for libel tried at the circuit, where a verdict was rendered in favor of the plaintiff for $1,000. The defendant has appealed from the judgment entered upon the verdict and from the order denying a motion for a new trial on the minutes of the court

It is claimed on this appeal that there was no ¡iroof of the publication of the libelous article by the defendant. Upon that point the proof was that the defendant was a corporation organized for the purpose of printing and publishing newspapers, books and pamphlets, and to establish or acquire a printing and publishing office, and that the World newspaper, in which the libel was printed, was published at Wo. 32 Park Bow, the place of business of the defendant, and we think such proof was sufficient to put the defendant upon its defense and to justify the jury in finding the fact of the publication of the libel by the defendant

The next error assigned is presented in this way: Among the defenses set up by the answer the defendant substantially charged the truth of the matter contained in the article complained of, and on the .trial the counsel for the defendant requested the judge to charge: “ That there is no evidence in this case that the defendant was influenced by actual malice in publishing its report of this judicial probeeding aforesaid, if the same was fair and true.” And the court replied: “So charged, other than the justification of the article and its contents,” and the defendant excepted to the response made to such request.

The question involved was re-examined by the court of appeals in the case of Cruikshank v. Gordon, 118 N. Y., 178; 28 N. Y. State Rep., 784, and the- doctrine of that case sustains the portion of the charge in question.

The other questions presented have been examined, but no error is presented.

The judgment and order should be affirmed, with costs.

Pratt, J., concurs.  