{ "id": 3409582, "name": "Charles Voris, Appellant, v. Street and Smith Publications and Edward Sokol, Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Voris v. Street & Smith Publications", "decision_date": "1947-02-05", "docket_number": "Gen. No. 43,890", "first_page": "409", "last_page": "413", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "330 Ill. App. 409" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ill. App. Ct.", "id": 8837, "name": "Illinois Appellate Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 29, "name_long": "Illinois", "name": "Ill." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "128 Atl. 373", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "215 Fed. 99", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 3566851 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/215/0099-01" ] }, { "cite": "104 Fed. 278", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "F.", "case_ids": [ 6721620 ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/f/104/0278-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 444, "char_count": 6825, "ocr_confidence": 0.516, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.5573084167625926e-07, "percentile": 0.6763228280876608 }, "sha256": "33e12076e41f294515f7702792945c4b44da67bd28fac9ff2afe2cf0cc231069", "simhash": "1:de93e2330c4c2284", "word_count": 1118 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:56:15.773386+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Charles Voris, Appellant, v. Street and Smith Publications and Edward Sokol, Appellees." ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Mr. Justice Burke\ndelivered the opinion of the court.\nThe first count of a complaint filed in the superior court of Cook county by Charles Voris against Street & Smith Publications, Inc., and Edward Sokol averred that at all times therein mentioned and for a long time prior thereto, plaintiff was known as 1 \u2018 Snapper Charlie\u201d; that he was a person of good repute and name; that he was deservedly held in high esteem in the City of Chicago, County of Cook, State of Illinois and throughout the United States; that he was at all times \u2018 \u2018 and for a long time prior thereto \u2019 \u2019 known throughout divers states \u201cthroughout the' United States\u201d as \u2018 \u2018 Snapper Charlie \u2019 \u2019; that the corporate defendant was the publisher of divers magazines and publications circulated throughout the United States, and more particularly, a certain magazine known as \u201cPic\u201d (The Magazine for Young Men); that the publication was circulated throughout the entire United States and Canada by the corporate defendant, that the circulation of the magazine was \u201cexcessive\u201d and that it was \u201cissued once a month\u201d; that defendant corporation employed as its agent and servant the other defendant, Edward Sokol; that the latter was employed by the corporate defendant to write and edit articles for the magazine \u201cPic\u201d; that on January 1, 1946 the corporate defendant, through its agent, the individual defendant, maliciously composed and caused to be published \u201cof and concerning the plaintiff\u201d in the magazine \u201cPic,\u201d which the defendants caused \u201cto be printed, posted, circulated and published throughout the United States\u201d the false and defamatory matter following, to-wit:\n\u201cBe it in New York, Chicago, Minneapolis or New Orleans, the gambling cross-section is much the same. Thin, fat, crippled or disgustingly healthy, they all operated off the same standards \u2014 right from a roll of green bills which come in and out of their pants pockets a thousand times a day. All are slaves to money and only the book operators \u2014 the conservative commissioners \u2014 are masters of it. Legless Charlie . . . Baby Doll . . . Memphis Bed . . . Snapper Charlie . . . Oscar . . . Dillinger . . . Eddie, the Barber \u2014 all form a cross-section of America\u2019s sports gambling. . . . \u2018Snapper Charlie\u2019 has two professions. He prefers to gamble exclusively, but often he reverts to his secondary vocation of \u2018looping\u2019 among sidewalk strangers out of sheer necessity. He \u2018loops\u2019 in the patented manner \u2014 by offering a beautiful and bona fide diamond for sale at a ridiculously low price. Then, when the stranger hands over the money, \u2018Snapper Charlie\u2019 slips him a sparkling imitation, made of the best glass money can buy, and goes back to gambling. \u2018Snapper\u2019 \u2014 he acquired the name from the constant snapping of his fingers \u2014 is often singled out by his colleagues as the classic example of how unbalancing the habit of gambling can become. They usually wind up with the story of how he ran $15 to $2,000 in one day, yet at dinnertime he had to borrow 16 cents for a quart of milk because all of his money was invested in a string of night games.\u201d\nThis count further avers that the \u201cfacts stated in said publication were wholly false and that by reason of said publication\u201d he was injured in his reputation to his damage in the sum of $100,000, and he prayed for judgment for this amount. The second and concluding count of the complaint, realleged, in substance, the allegations of the first count.\nA motion to strike the complaint, specifically pointing out the defects complained of, was filed by the individual defendant. The corporate defendant filed a special appearance and a motion to quash the return of the sheriff showing service of summons upon it. This motion was supported by affidavits and challenged the jurisdiction of the court over the \u201cperson\u201d of the corporate defendant. The record brought here does not show what disposition, if any, was made of the motion filed by the corporate defendant. The court sustained the individual defendant\u2019s motion to strike and dismissed the complaint, entering judgment against plaintiff. This appeal followed.\nDefendant maintains that there is no proper allegation in the complaint that there were any members of the public who read the article and knew that it referred to plaintiff. Defendant also asserts that there must be certainty of person before an action for libel will lie. Plaintiff insists that the allegations of the complaint connect him with \u201cSnapper Charlie.\u201d The gravamen of an action for libel is not the injury to plaintiff\u2019s feelings, but damage to his reputation in the eyes of others, and a complaint is insufficient which fails to show that the alleged libelous article was understood by its readers to refer to the plaintiff. There is no allegation that any person or persons who read the article knew that it referred to the plaintiff. It is true that the complaint avers that the defamatory language was used \u201cof and concerning\u201d the plaintiff. It is not enough to constitute libel that plaintiff knew that he was the subject of the article, or that defendants knew of whom they were writing. It should appear upon the face of the complaint that persons other than these must have reasonably understood that the article was written of and concerning the plaintiff, and that the so-called libelous expression related to him. An averment of fact extrinsic to the article, and essential to an identification of the article with the person complaining, cannot be embodied in an innuendo. The office of an innuendo is to deduce inferences from premises already stated, not to state the premises themselves. Duvivier v. French, 104 Fed. 278. In Northrop v. Tibbles, 215 Fed. 99, the court held that where an alleged libelous letter did not name plaintiff as the person intended to be libeled, a declaration, failing to charge that the recipient of the letter, or any other third person, understood the libelous matter to refer to plaintiff, was demurrable; it being insufficient to charge merely that defendant wrote and published the letter \u201cof and concerning\u201d plaintiff. See also Zanker v. Lackey, 2 W. W. Harr. (Del.) 588, 128 Atl. 373.\nWhile the complaint alleges that plaintiff is known as \u201cSnapper Charlie,\u201d it does not allege that he is the only person with that nickname. We are of the opinion that the complaint does not state a cause of action and that the trial judge was right in dismissing it. Therefore, the judgment of the superior court of Cook county is affirmed.\nJudgment affirmed.\nLews, P. J., and Kilby, J., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Mr. Justice Burke" } ], "attorneys": [ "Clarence M. Dunagan, of Chicago, for appellant.", "William Marosco, of Chicago, for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Charles Voris, Appellant, v. Street and Smith Publications and Edward Sokol, Appellees.\nGen. No. 43,890.\nOpinion filed February 5, 1947.\nReleased for publication February 21, 1947.\nClarence M. Dunagan, of Chicago, for appellant.\nWilliam Marosco, of Chicago, for appellee." }, "file_name": "0409-01", "first_page_order": 445, "last_page_order": 449 }