Third Department, July, 1921. [Vol. 197 March, 1919, dismissing the petition, and also from an order entered in said clerk's office on the 22d day of March, 1919, denying petitioner's motion to set aside the verdict and for a new trial made upon the minutes. Borst & Smith [Homer J. Borst of counsel], for the appellant. Harry G. Coplon, for the respondent. WOODWARD, J.: The petition of Andrew Kinum, of the city of Schenectady, alleges that on or about the 1st of October, 1914, John Kinum, now deceased, went into the employ of the petitioner upon a farm owned by said petitioner for an agreed compensation, including the rental of a house upon the farm; that the said John Kinum continued in the employment until his death on the 23d day of October, 1918; that since said time the widow of John Kinum has continued in possession of the said premises as a tenant at will or sufferance of the petitioner, and that on or about the 30th day of November, 1918, the petitioner caused to be served upon said Elizabeth W. Kinum a notice to vacate, deliver and surrender up possession of the said premises on or before January 1, 1919; that the tenancy was thus terminated and that the tenant holds over and continues in possession after the expiration of said term without the permission of the petitioner. Application is made for a final order dispossessing the tenant. The answer of Elizabeth W. Kinum admits ownership in the petitioner, the receiving of the notice to remove, and denies the other allegations of the petition, setting up as an affirmative defense that John Kinum died on or about the 23d day of October, 1918; that thereafter and on or about the 9th day of November, 1918, she applied for and received letters of administration; that heretofore and on or about the 15th day of October, 1917, the said John Kinum entered upon the premises as tenant of his father, the petitioner, at a rental of $150; that the said John Kinum, deceased, continued to occupy the said premises after the expiration of the term of one year, and that by reason thereof said lease 1 App. Div. 839] Third Department, July, 1921. automatically renewed itself for the period of another year terminating October 15, 1919. The petitioner replied, denying the matters alleged in defense. The case went to trial, resulting in an order dismissing the petition, and the petitioner appeals therefrom. Assuming the facts as they must have been found by the jury, that John Kinum became the tenant of the petitioner for a period of one year, and that he held over during the period from October 15, 1918, to the twenty-third day of October in the same year, when he died, how can this be a defense to the proceeding for the removal of the widow? The rule is undoubted that where a tenant having a lease for one year holds over at the expiration of his term the law implies an agreement on his part to hold for another year upon the terms of the lease, but the option is with the landlord to so regard it or to treat the tenant as a trespasser. (Schuyler v. Smith, 51 N. Y. 309, 314; Haynes v. Aldrich, 133 id. 287; Dagett v. Champney, 122 App. Div. 254.) In this case the landlord has elected to treat the widow as a trespasser; he has given proper notice, and under the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure (§§ 2231, 2232 et seq.) he is entitled to the order applied for in his petition. The court was clearly in error in refusing to charge the law as requested by the petitioner. The orders appealed from should be reversed, and the petitioner should have the relief prayed for in his petition. All concur. Orders reversed, without costs, and relief granted to the petitioner in accordance with the opinion. Third Department, July, 1921. [Vol. 197 ROBERT P. MCKEE, Respondent, v. LOUIS F. ROBERT, Libel -- Appellant. Third Department, July 7, 1921. action by manager and editor of newspaper for personal damages allegation that plaintiff was injured as manager and editor need not be preceded by formal phrase of and concerning " his business said question cannot be raised first on appeal refusal of court to charge jury upon each independent statement in the pamphlet" not error evidence establishing malice verdict not excessive — technical errors disregarded under Code of Civil Procedure, § 1317. In an action by a newspaper manager and editor to recover personal damages for libel based on a pamphlet printed and published by the defendant, in which the plaintiff alleged that he was injured in his reputation, good name and credit as manager and editor of a newspaper of which he was in control, it was not necessary for him to precede said allegation by the formal phrase of and concerning" his business. 66 Furthermore, since defendant did not take advantage of said defect by demurrer or on the trial, and took no exception to the charge of the court that the jury were to examine into the proposition as to whether the plaintiff had been damaged by the article in his business or profession, the defendant cannot raise the question on appeal. It was not error for the court to refuse to charge the jury upon each independent statement in the pamphlet and to say in effect that if the statement so taken bodily from its surroundings was not libelous, it made up no part of plaintiff's cause of action; the whole libel was a part of the complaint, and detached statements cannot be set apart to destroy the connection of the whole. The evidence clearly establishes malice and the verdict for $3,000 in favor of the plaintiff was not excessive. Moreover, the judgment is so obviously just that any technical error should be disregarded under section 1317 of the Code of Civil Procedure. APPEAL by the defendant, Louis F. Robert, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Essex on the 21st day of September, 1920, on the verdict of a jury for $3,000. Weeds, Conway & Cotter [T. B. Cotter and F. E. Smith of counsel], for the appellant. Patrick J. Tierney, for the respondent. App. Div. 842] KILEY, J.: Third Department, July, 1921. The appellant swears that, in order to get even with the respondent for criticising, in the newspaper of which he is editor and manager, a fight between appellant and another resident of Ausable Forks, in the lobby of the theatre in that place, he prepared, had printed and circulated throughout that country, of and concerning the respondent, the following vicious and malicious article, viz.: "THE RECORD'S RELIABILITY "The Adirondack Record has published a very pretty little article about the class of entertainments that the Bridge Theatre is furnishing its patrons, especially the one given on Friday evening, December 26, which they say has not been equaled for true degeneracy and filthiness in a very long time. Now, we wish to say that if any one would like to know something about filth and degeneracy, they need not wait for the evening and the Theatre, but call on the editor of the Record at any time and listen to his stories of himself. ' "We would like very much to have them explain the meaning of the word 'profanity,' also, as the term LIAR was the nearest thing to profanity that was used during the so-called entertainment, and, if that is classed as profanity in the Record's dictionary, we would like to get a copy. "The item regarding the Chairman of the Red Cross offering to referee a fight between the parties who were quarreling must have been inserted to help fill up the columns, or as a sample of the Record's news, as the person referred to was in New York City at the time, and did not learn of the trouble until he saw the brilliant talk in the Record. "In a recent issue of that ably (?) edited sheet The Adirondack Record- under date of December 26, we believe this 'great' reformer, or performer, referred to that terribly corrupt town of Black Brook' and to its citizens as bootleggers, and to the town authorities as incompetents. "All you have to do is to listen to this actor a few minutes, and you will realize that his hat covers the worst corruption in the entire town. 66 Again listen to him, and you will learn from his own lips that he is a booze fighter,' gambler and immoral man. Yet every time he hears of any one using a little Third Department, July, 1921. [Vol. 197 'fire water,' as he calls it, or perhaps committing some little offense, he rushes into print to vilify the party; when, as a matter of fact, judging from what he says, he punishes more 'fire water' than any 'gutter pup' was ever known to. "This great apostle of prohibition said that he attended a meeting of the Board of Supervisors at Elizabethtown recently, and upon his return, he told anybody that wanted to listen. to him, that at a certain dinner, we paid Ben Stetson $235 for whiskey.' This may be so, and may not; however, MORAL: Ben, do not trust any low-grade talking machine. A slight jar sometimes set these self-winders off, and they tell things. "We would suggest to this hypocrite that if he wants to publish a real sensational story-something that would eclipse anything that he has ever printed along the lines of degeneracy and filthiness to devote several columns about himself every week for the year of 1920. You cannot camouflage the people. - "In conclusion, we wish to say that the most of the representative citizens of Ausable Forks unite in saying that if the Record's chief representative could be treated to a ride out of the town on a fence rail with a nice coat of tar and feathers as wearing apparel, it would be as good a thing as could happen to the town." Before having the article printed the appellant visited an attorney, a district attorney, and swears his purpose in so doing was to avoid any penalty the law might exact for doing a citizen such damage as such a publication was calculated to produce. That he admits the preparation, the publication, and the circulation of said article, and for the purposes above set forth, appears from the record. This action is the result of such publication and circulation. To the complaint in the action the appellant, defendant, makes three defenses justification, mitigation, and with an audacity, superb and incomprehensible, he swears that the handbill was honestly and truthfully prepared without malice or desire to injure the plaintiff, respondent, here. From the evidence of the defendant it clearly appears that such allegation is false. The complaint, which set forth the libel in full, alleges that by reason of its publication plaintiff was injured in his reputation (individually), and that he was injured in his |