
    GOLDWASSER v. JEWISH PRESS PUB. CO.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    June 13, 1913.)
    Libel and Slander (§ 6)—Publications Libelous Per Se.
    A newspaper article, stating that plaintiff’s wife, the mother of seven children, committed suicidé by jumping out of a window, owing to her weak and nervous condition, because of taking care alone of a house and seven children, and that for the past three years she had been weak and nervous, and had constantly complained that she could not alone discharge her domestic duties, is not libelous per se, in charging that plaintiff mistreated his wife, or failed to do his duty as a kind husband in furnishing her with necessary aid, thus indirectly causing her suicide, .■ for there is no statement as to plaintiff’s means, or that he failed in any duty within his power to perform.
    [Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. §§ 3-16; 4 Dec. Dig. § 6.]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by Max Goldwasser against the Jewish Press Publishing Company. From an order denying defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, it appeals. Order reversed.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, P. J., and McLAUGHLIN, LAUGH-LIN, CLARKE, and SCOTT, JJ.
    Charles Dushkind, of New York City, for appellant.
    Harold M. Phillips, of New York City, for respondent.
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep'r Indexes
    
    
      
      For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   SCOTT, J.

The plaintiff sues for damages for libel, based upon an article printed .by the defendant to the effect that Ester Goldwasser, aged 39 years, the mother of seven children, had committed suicide by jumping out of a window. The article stated that the woman. was nervous and weak, because of taking care alone of a house and seven children; that for the past three years she had been weak and fearfully nervous; and that she had constantly complained that she could not take care alone of the house and her children and an old mother and her husband.

Plaintiff was the husband of the woman referred to, and he claims that-the article is libelous per se as to him, inasmuch as it charges by innuendo that he mistreated his wife, that he failed to furnish her with aid’ in the maintenance of a large.family, that he had failed to do his duty as a kind and loving husband, and that he had been indirectly the cause of the suicide.

The article is not, in our opinion, capable of the meaning which plaintiff seeks to attribute to it. There is no mention of or reference to the plaintiff in the article. There is no statement as to his means, or charge that he failed in any duty within his power to perform. There are probably hundreds, and possibly thousands, of women in every large city who find the unavoidable burdens of life almost more than they can bear, although their husbands do all things possible, within their means, to lighten these burdens. The publication complained of does not charge plaintiff, or any one, either in direct terms or by fair inference, with having been guilty of any culpable neglect, or of having driven the woman to suicide by ill- treatment.

Order appealed from reversed, with'$10 costs and disbursements, and motion granted, with $10 costs. All concur.  