§ 247. Publishing a true report of public official proceedings.— A prosecution for libel cannot be maintained against a reporter, editor, publisher, or proprietor of a newspaper, for the publication therein, of a fair and true report of any judicial, legislative or other public and official proceeding, or of any statement, speech, argument or debate in the course of the same, without proving actual malice in making the report.

See § 143, supra, 7; supra. Thomas v. Croswell, 7 Johns. 264; Wilcox v. Bennett, 1 U. S. Law Mag. 131; Steele v. Southwick, 9 Johns. 214; Ackerman v. Jones, 5 J. & S. 42; Edsall v. Brooks, 2 Rob. 29; Sanford v. Bennett, 24 N. Y. 20; McCabe v. Cauldwell, 18 Abb. Pr. 377; Stanley v. Webb, 4 Sandf. 221.

248. Qualification of last section. The last section does not apply to a libel contained in the heading of the report, or in any other matter added by any other person concerned in the publication; or in the report of any thing said or done at the time and place of the public and official proceeding, which was not a part thereof. Stanley v. Webb, 4 Sandf. 221.

$249. Indictment for libel in newspaper. An indictment for a libel, contained in a newspaper published within this state, against a resident thereof, may be found either in the county where the paper was published, or in the county where the person libeled resided when the offense was committed. In the latter case the defendant is entitled to an order of the Supreme Court, directing the indictment against him to be tried in the county in which the paper was printed and published, upon compliance with the following conditions:

1. He must apply for the order within thirty days after being committed upon, or giving bail to answer, the indictment;

2. He must execute a bond to the complainant, with two sufficient sureties, approved by the judge hearing his application, in a penal sum fixed by the judge, not less than two hundred and fifty nor more than one thousand dollars, conditioned for the payment, in case the defendant is convicted, of all the complainant's reasonable expenses in going to and from his place of residence and the place of trial, and in attendance upon the trial;

3. He must, within ten days after the granting of the order, file the order and deposit the bond with the clerk of the county in which the indictment is pending.

Code Cr. Proc., § 138.

250. Libel against non-resident. An indictment for a libel published against a person not a resident of this state, must be found and tried in the county, where the paper containing the libel purports upon its face to be published; or, if no county is indicated upon the face of the paper, in any county where the paper was circulated. Code Cr. Proc., § 138; Trumbull v. Gibbons, 3 C. H. Rec. 397.

-

§ 251. Punishment restricted. A person cannot be indicted or tried for the publication of the same libel, against the same person, in more than one county.

Code Cr. Proc., § 138.

§ 252. Power of court, place of trial. Nothing contained in this chapter shall be construed to abridge, or in any manner affect, the

power of a competent court, to change the place of trial of an indictment for libel, in the same manner as may lawfully be done, in respect to any other indictment.

§ 253. Privileged communications.—A communication made to a person entitled to, or interested in, the communication, by one who was also interested in or entitled to make it, or who stood in such a relation to the former as to afford a reasonable ground for supposing his motive innocent, is presumed not to be malicious, and is called a privileged communication.

When privileged. Legislative or judicial proceedings. Kelly v. Taintor, 48 How. Pr. 270; Thorn v. Blanchard, 5 Johns. 508; Vandezee v. McGregor, 12 Wend. 545; Cook v. Hill, 3 Sandf. 341. To bishop, or priest. O'Donaghue v. McGovern, 23 Wend. 26. Secret society. Streety v. Wood, 15 Barb 105. Investigating committee of college. Van Wyck v. Aspinwall, 17 N. Y. 190. To fire marshal. Newfield v. Copperman, 47 How. Pr. 87. Literary criticism. Reade v. Swertzer, 8 Abb. Pr. (N. S.) 9n. Agent. Lewis v. Chapman, 16 N. Y. 369. Advice by private letter. Washburn v. Cooke, 3 Den. 110. Pleading. Garr v. Selden, 4 N. Y. 91. Affidavit on motion Suydam v. Moffatt, 1 Sandf. 459; Warner v. Paine, 2 id. 195. Objections filed by counsel. Marsh v. Ellsworth, 50 N. Y. 309. Between parties interested in prosecution. Klinck v. Colby, 46 N. Y. 427. Certificate of insanity. Perkins v. Mitchell, 31 Barb. 461. What not privileged. Address signed by president of public meeting of electors. Lewis v. Few, 5 Johns. 1. Criticism of operatic management. Fry v. Bennett, 28 N. Y. 324. Affidavit before governor, who has no jurisdiction. Hosmer v. Loveland, 19 Barb. 111. Mercantile agencies, to customers generally. Taylor v. Church, 8 N. Y. 452; Sunderlin v. Bradstreet, 46 id. 188. Scandalous pleading. Gilbert v. People, 1 Den. 41. Proceedings at execution. Sandford v. Bennett, 24 N. Y. 20. Accusing public officer. Hamilton v. Eno, 81 id. 116. See Eastwood v. Holmes, 1 Fost. & F. 347; Turnbull v. Bird, 2 id. 524. See 15 Law Mag. (N. S.) 216, 241; 1 Cr., M. & W. 193 See Byam v. Collins, 111 N. Y. 150; Van Wyck v. Aspinwall, 17 id. 190; Hunt v. Bennett, 19 id. 173; Halstead v. Nelson, 24 Hun, 395; Briggs v. Garrett, 111 Penn. St. 404; Root_v. King, 7 Cow. 613; 4 Wend. 113; Edsall v. Brooks, 17 Abb. 221; Ackerman v. Jones, 5 J. & Sp. 42; McCabe v. Cauldwell, 18 Abb. 377; Stanley v. Webb, 4 Sandf. 21; Wood v. Wiman, 122 N. Y. 445, rev'g 47 Hun, 364.

$254. Threatening to publish libel.—A person who threatens another with the publication of a libel, concerning the latter or concerning any parent, husband, wife, child or other member of the family of the latter, and a person who offers to prevent the publication of a libel upon another person upon condition of the payment of, or with intent to extort, money or other valuable consideration from any person, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

See §§ 553, 558, post.

§ 254 A. Furnishing libelous information.- Any person who willfully states, delivers or transmits by any means whatever to the manager, editor, publisher or reporter of any newspaper, magazine, publication, periodical or serial for publication therein any libelous statement concerning any person or corporation and thereby secures the actual publication of the same, is guilty of a misdemeanor. [ADDED CH. 340 of 1890; in effect Sept. 1, 1890.]

TITLE X.

Of Crimes Against the Person and Against Public Decency and

CHAP.

Good Morals.

I. Crimes against religious liberty and conscience.

II Rape, abuction, carnal abuse of children, and seduction.

III. Abandonment and neglect of children.

IV. Abortions and concealing death of infant.

V. Bigamy, incest and the crime against nature.

VI. Violating sepulture and the remains of the dead.

VII. Indecent exposures, obscene exhibitions, books and prints, and disorderly houses.

VIII. Lotteries.

IX. Gaming.

X. Pawnbrokers.

SS 255-258. [Repealed by ch. 384 of 1882.]

§ 259. The Sabbath.- The first day of the week being by general consent set apart for rest and religious uses, the law prohibits the doing on that day of certain acts hereinafter specified, which are serious interruptions of the repose and religious liberty of the community.

People v. Dennin, 35 Hun, 327; Dinsmore v. N. Y. Police, 12 Abb. N. C. 436; Lindenmuller v. People, 33 Barb. 548. See note to Swann v. Swann, 24 Am. L. Reg. (N. S.) 378, 394, and 18 Am. L. Rev. 778, 795; Neuendorff v. Duryea, 69 N.Y. 577; Smith v. Wilcox, 24 id. 353; People v. Ball, 42 Barb. 324; People v. Hoym, 20 How. 76; Andrews v. Bible Society, 4 Sandf. 156; People v. Ruggles, 8 Johns. 210; McPherson v. Chebause, 114 Ill. 46; Com. v. Has, 122 Mass. 40; Matter of Burke, 59 Cal. 6; Vidal v. Girard's Ex'rs, 2 How. (U. S.) 127.

§ 260. Sabbath breaking. — A violation of the foregoing prohibition is Sabbath breaking.

Corporation may be indicted for. State v. Balt. & O. R., 22 Alb. L. J. 38. See Anonymous, 12 Abb. N. C. 457.

§ 261. "Day" defined.-[Repealed by ch. 677 of 1892.]

$262. [Repealed by ch. 358 of 1883.]

§ 263. Servile labor. All labor on Sunday is prohibited, excepting the works of necessity or charity. In works of necessity or charity is included whatever is needful during the day for the good order, health or comfort of the community. [AMD. CH. 358 of 1883.] Work of necessity. Morris v. State, 31 Ind. 189; State v. Goff, 20 Ark. 289. See 88 263, 265, 267, 268, post; Eberle v. Mehrbach, 55 N. Y. 682; People v. Lyons, 5 Hun, 643; Brunnett v. Clark, 1 Sheld. 50; Sun, etc., Association v Tribune AsSee Merrit v. sociation, 12 J. & Sp. 136; Brooklyn v. Toynbee, 31 Barb. 282. Earle, 29 N. Y. 122; Dinsmore v. Board, etc., 12 Abb. N. C. 437; Batsford v. Every, 44 Barb. 618; Miller v. Roessler, 4 E. D. Smith, 234; Bilordeaux v. Lithographic Co., 30 N. Y. State Rep'r, 656; 9 N. Y. Supp. 507; State v. Railroad Co., 28 W. Va. 783.

- It is a

§ 264. Persons observing another day as a Sabbath. sufficient defense to a prosecution for work or labor on the first day of the week, that the defendant uniformly keeps another day of the week as holy time, and does not labor on that day, and that the labor complained of was done in such manner as not to interrupt or disturb other persons in observing the first day of the week as holy time. [AMD. CH. 519 of 1885.]

Maxon v. Annas, 1 Denio, 204; Anonymous, 12 Abb. N. C. 457; Isaacs v. Beth, etc., Soc., 1 Hilton, 469; Johns v. State, 78 Ind. 332; Com. v. Has, 122 Mass. 40; City of Shreveport v. Levy, 26 La. Ann. 671; Scales v. State, 47 Ark. 476; Swann v. Swann, 21 Fed. Rep'r, 299.

§ 265. Public sports.

All shooting, hunting, fishing, playing, horse racing, gaming or other public sports, exercises or shows, upon the first day of the week, and all noise disturbing the peace of the day, are prohibited. [AMD. CH. 358 of 1883.] People v. Dennin, 35 Hun, 327; 3 N. Y. Cr. 128.

§ 266. Trades, manufactures and mechanical employments. All trades, manufactures, agricultural or mechanical employments upon the first day of the week are prohibited, except that when the same are works of necessity they may be performed on that day in their usual and orderly manner, so as not to interfere with the repose and religious liberty of the community. [AмD. CH. 358 of 1883.]

Manhattan I. Works Co. v. French, 12 Abb. N. C. 448: Sanders v. Staten I. R. Co., 13 Abb. (N. S.) 355; Anonymous, 12 Abb. N. C. 458; Com. v. Dextra, 143 Mass. 28; State v. Federich, 45 Ark. 347; People v. Lyons, 5 Hun, 643; Yonoski v. State, 79 Ind. 393; Wilkinson v. State, 59 id. 416; Com. v. Louisville, etc., R. Co., 80 Ky. 291; Phil., etc., R. Co. v. Lehman, 56 Md. 209; Muller v. State, 76 Ind. 310; Phelps v. Board, etc., 5 Law Bull. 13; Hennersdorf v. State, 11 Cr. L. Mag. 179.

267. Public traffic. All manner of public selling or offering for sale of any property upon Sunday is prohibited, except that articles of food may be sold and supplied at any time before ten o'clock in the morning, and except also that meals may be sold to be eaten on the premises where sold or served elsewhere by caterers; and prepared tobacco in places other than where spirituous or malt

liquors or wines are kept or offered for sale, and fruit, confectionery, newspapers, drugs, medicines, and surgical appliances may be sold in a quiet and orderly manner at any time of the day. [AMD. CH. 358 of 1883.]

Boynton v. Page, 13 Wend. 425; Anonymous, 12 Abb. N. C. 458; State v. Ohmer, 11 Cr. L. Mag. 378.

§ 268. Serving process on Sunday prohibited. All service of legal process of any kind whatever, upon the first day of the week, is prohibited, except in cases of breach of the peace, or apprehended breach of the peace, or when sued out for the apprehension of a person charged with crime, or except where such service is specially authorized by statute. Service of any process upon said day except as herein permitted is absolutely void for any and every purpose whatever. [AMD. CH. 622 of 1892. In effect June 6, 1892.]

See § 2015 of Code of Civ. Proc.; Hastings v. Farmer, 4 N. Y. 296; Butler v Kelsey, 15 Johns. 177; Van Vechten v. Paddock, 12 id. 178.

§ 269. Sabbath breaking. — Sabbath breaking is a misdemeanor, punishable by a fine not less than five dollars and not more than ten dollars, or by imprisonment in a county jail not exceeding five days, or by both, but for a second or other offense, where the party shall have been previously convicted, it shall be punishable by a fine not less than ten dollars and not more than twenty dollars, and by imprisonment in a county jail not less than five nor more than twenty days. [AMD. CH. 535 of 1887.]

§ 270. Forfeiture of commodities exposed for sale.—In addition to the penalty imposed by the last section, all property and commodities exposed for sale on the first day of the week in violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be forfeited. Upon conviction of the offender by a justice of the peace of a county, or by a mayor, recorder or alderman of a city, such officer shall issue a warrant for the seizure of the forfeited articles, which, when seized, shall be sold on one day's notice, and the proceeds paid to the overseers of the poor, for the use of the poor of the town or city. [AMD. CH. 358 of 1883.]

$271. Remedy for maliciously serving process.-Whoever maliciously procures any process in a civil action to be served on Saturday, upon any person who keeps Saturday as holy time, and does not labor on that day, or serves upon him any process returnable on that day, or maliciously procures any civil action to which such person is a party to be adjourned to that day for trial, is guilty of a misdemeanor.

Maxson v. Annas, 1 Den. 204.

§ 272. Compelling adoption of a form of belief.-An attempt by means of threats or violence, to compel any person to adopt, practice or profess a particular form of religious belief, is a misdemeanor. See § 3, art. 1 of State Const.; first amendment, Fed. Const.

$273. Preventing performance of religious act.-A person who willfully prevents, by threats or violence, another person from performing any lawful act enjoined upon or recommended to such person by the religion which he professes, is guilty of a misdemeanor.