## Facts

- Ketcham, an orchard owner and assistant postmaster, suspected attorney Weidman of stealing apples.
- Ketcham prepared a written accusation stating that Weidman had stolen apples and threatening arrest or similar consequences.
- Ketcham placed the writing in a sealed envelope addressed to Weidman and mailed it to Weidman’s residence.
- At the post office, Ketcham wrote the communication in the postmaster’s presence and stated he was writing to “a man who stole apples,” but did not identify Weidman by name.
- The postmaster could not see the writing, the addressee, or the envelope’s name and address.
- At Weidman’s home, Weidman’s wife opened the sealed envelope, read the contents, and showed it to Weidman’s mother.
- Weidman sued for libel, claiming publication through (1) the postmaster’s awareness at the post office and (2) his wife’s and mother’s reading of the letter at home.

## Issues

1. Whether the defendant “published” the alleged libel by writing it in the postmaster’s presence when the postmaster did not know the plaintiff’s identity and could not see the contents.
2. Whether mailing a sealed defamatory communication to the plaintiff constitutes publication to family members who open and read it, absent proof the defendant knew or should have expected that practice.
3. Whether later disclosure of the contents by the plaintiff or his family can supply publication attributable to the defendant.

## Decision

- The Court of Appeals of New York reversed the Appellate Division and affirmed dismissal of the complaint.
- The court held the evidence was legally insufficient to prove publication of the alleged libel by Ketcham.
- The postmaster’s proximity and non-identifying awareness did not establish communication of a defamatory statement about Weidman to a third person.
- The wife’s and mother’s reading of the sealed letter did not constitute publication by Ketcham because there was no showing he knew or had reason to expect someone other than Weidman would open it.

## Legal Principles

- Libel requires publication: communication of defamatory matter to a person other than the plaintiff who understands its defamatory meaning as referring to the plaintiff.
- A bystander’s general awareness that a writer is accusing “someone” of misconduct does not establish publication where the bystander cannot connect the accusation to the plaintiff and does not know the contents.
- There is no presumption of fact or law that sealed mail addressed to one family member will be opened and read by another; publication through third-party reading requires proof the sender knew or should have expected that result.
- Disclosure of the defamatory content by the plaintiff or the plaintiff’s household members is not a publication attributable to the defendant for purposes of establishing the defendant’s liability.

## Conclusion

Because the postmaster lacked access to the contents and could not identify Weidman as the accused person, and because Ketcham mailed the accusation in a sealed envelope without reason to expect third-party opening, the court found no publication and rejected the libel claim.


Weidman v. Ketcham, 278 N.Y. 129, 15 N.E.2d 426 (N.Y. 1938)