## Facts

- A widely circulated New York newspaper published a column item stating: “John Crane, former president of the UFA now under indictment ….”
- John P. Crane, a former union president for New York City firefighters, had never been indicted by a grand jury.
- Crane sued for libel, alleging the statement was false and defamatory and caused reputational and employment harm; he also alleged willful wrongdoing and “actual malice.”
- Defendants admitted publication, denied liability, and pleaded:
  - a complete defense of truth, asserting Crane was “under indictment” in a nonlegal sense because he had been accused of criminal conduct and was guilty of misconduct described in detail; and
  - a partial defense in mitigation, repeating similar allegations to reduce damages.
- The trial court struck both defenses as legally insufficient; the Appellate Division reinstated them on the theory that “under indictment” could be understood to mean “accused.”

## Issues

1. Whether the statement that plaintiff was “now under indictment,” in context, could reasonably be understood by ordinary readers to mean mere accusation rather than formal grand-jury indictment.
2. Whether allegations of accusations and other criminal wrongdoing, without an actual grand-jury indictment, can support a complete defense of truth to the charge that plaintiff was “under indictment.”
3. Whether such allegations can be pleaded in mitigation of damages when they do not tend to prove the truth of the specific defamatory charge.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals reversed the Appellate Division and reinstated the order striking both defenses.
- The court held that, in context, “under indictment” would be understood in its natural and ordinary legal sense: formally charged by a grand jury.
- Because Crane had never been indicted, the pleaded “truth” defense did not justify the publication’s defamatory sting.
- The mitigation defense was also insufficient because the pleaded allegations did not tend to prove the truth of the specific charge that Crane was “under indictment.”

## Legal Principles

- Allegedly defamatory words are construed as ordinary readers would understand them in context; the court determines meaning in the first instance.
- Where a term has a settled legal meaning and is used in a context referring to legal proceedings, that legal meaning controls unless the publication clearly indicates otherwise.
- A truth (justification) defense in libel must establish the truth of the publication’s defamatory sting, not merely related misconduct or accusations.
- Facts pleaded in mitigation must bear directly on the defamatory charge and tend to prove it; unrelated allegations of wrongdoing or bad character are not proper mitigation.

## Conclusion

The court treated “under indictment” as a statement of formal grand-jury indictment, held the publication could not be justified or mitigated by allegations of other accusations or misconduct, and struck both defenses as legally insufficient.


Crane v. N.Y. World Telegram Corp., 308 N.Y. 470 (N.Y. 1955)