SPRECKELS v. KLEINSCHMIDT

SPRECKELS v. KLEINSCHMIDT. (Circuit Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. May 20, 1912.) No. 2,076. Ltthht. and Slander (§ 87) — -Complain-l-Falsity op Publication. Whore a complaint for libel charged that the publication was malicious, false, defamatory, and libelous, it sufficiently charged that the matter complained of was untrue. [Ed. Note. — -For other cases, see Libel and Slander, Cent. Dig. § 211; Dec.' Dig. § 87.] In Error to the Circuit Court of the United States for the Northern District of California. Action by Albert Kleinsehmidt against John D. Spreckels.. Prom an order overruling a demurrer to the complaint, defendant brings error. Affirmed. Bourdette & Bacon, of San Francisco, Cal., for plaintiff in error. R. P. Henshall, Nat. Sclimulowitz, and Clarence Coonan, all of San Francisco, Cal., for defendant in error. Before GILBERT and ROSS, Circuit Judges, and WOLVERTON. District Judge. For other cases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Reo’r Indexes [MAJORITY — ROSS, Circuit Judge.] ROSS, Circuit Judge. The sole contention made on behalf of the plaintiff in error in this case is that the complaint does not allege that the libelous matter contained in the publication complained of was untrue. We think the contention without merit. The seventh paragraph of the complaint is as follows: “That said publication was and is malicious, false, defamatory and libelous, and calculated to bring and did and does bring this plaintiff into contempt, disgrace and ridicule among his friends, neighbors, and business associates, and in the estimation of society and the public in general, and has caused and does cause this plaintiff great and grievous mental suffering, shame and distress.” To say that the publication is false is equivalent to saying that the matter contained in it is false. The judgment is affirmed.