New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, “Charles T. Russell, Appellant, v. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Respondent, 168 A.D. 121”
“The plaintiff was the editor of a publication purporting to be devoted to a religious propaganda. In it he informed his sympathetic readers that one of his associates had accumulated Miracle wheat, which the associate was disposed to sell to the readers of that publication for one dollar a pound. The associate promised to give the entire proceeds to a corporation organized and controlled by the plaintiff. In the article it was represented that the yield of Miracle wheat was ten or fifteen times as great as the yield of common wheat. The record offered in evidence tended to show, as the result of governmental experiment, that Miracle wheat was no more prolific than brands of wheat in general use and of ordinary quality. There was independent evidence that other wheats could be purchased at prices so low in comparison as to make the advertised price of Miracle wheat exorbitant.”
Russell sued over a cartoon headed “Easy Money Puzzle” carrying the line “If Pastor Russell can get a dollar a pound for Miracle wheat, what could he have got for Miracle stocks and bonds as a director in the old Union Bank?” The trial judge told the jury the cartoon was libellous and left the defence of truth to them; the jury found for the Eagle. The appeal court held the United States Department of Agriculture reports properly admitted and affirmed, with costs.
Copie archivée ou autre copie (s’ouvre dans un nouvel onglet)
Note de provenance et de vérification for New York Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Second Department, Charles T. Russell, Appellant, v. The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, Respondent, 168 A.D. 121
Note sur la fiabilité. The full official-reporter text was downloaded and read on 19 September 2026. It records that judgment for the defendant was entered on 3 February 1913 and the motion for a new trial denied on 10 February 1913, and that J. F. Rutherford was on the brief for Russell on appeal. The opinion describes Russell as “an unordained preacher”.
Provenance de la numérisation. Caselaw Access Project (Harvard Law School Library) static edition of the official reporter, New York Appellate Division Reports vol. 168.
Notes. The opinion is per curiam; Jenks, P. J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred, and the judgment and order were unanimously affirmed with costs. This is the appellate record of the trial that Russell reported to his own readers in The Watch Tower of 15 February 1913.
Date de consultation. 19 septembre 2026 · Identifiant de la source. src-ctr-ad-1915-0507-russell-v-eagle