The following excerpt is from Demos v. New York Evening Journal Pub. Co., 103 N.E. 771, 210 N.Y. 13 (N.Y. 1913):
how the publication complained of could have had the defamatory effect upon the plaintiff's character and standing complained of, nevertheless, as it cannot be said, as matter of law, that it was incapable of a defamatory meaning, the trial judge should have allowed the jurors to decide whether it could be understood according to the meaning put by the plaintiff upon it by innuendo. Under the settled rule of law, if the language of the alleged libel is ambiguous and capable of an innocent, as well as of a [210 N.Y. 19]disgraceful, meaning, the question becomes one for the jury to settle. Morrison v. Smith, 177 N. Y. 366, 69 N. E. 725. If the words used are capable, by construction, or in their connection and application, of the interpretation given by the innuendo, then a question of fact is raised for the jurors to consider. They should determine, in a case of doubtful meaning, whether the tenor and import of the publication are offensive and defamatory, and whether it could be so understood by the general public, or in the plaintiff's neighborhood. The mere improbability of the meaning claimed for it would not control the question of the right of the jury to pass upon it; the question would be, May the alleged libel be understood as the plaintiff claims?
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.