Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

BOGASH v. ELKINS. (01/02/62)

January 2, 1962

BOGASH, APPELLANT,
v.
ELKINS.



Appeal, No. 220, Jan. T., 1961, from order of Court of Common Pleas No. 5 of Philadelphia County, June T., 1960, No. 2185, in case of Hyman C. Bogash v. Louis Elkins et al. Order affirmed.

COUNSEL

Albert H. Friedman, with him Norman P. Zarwin, for appellant.

Louis G. Hill, with him Bruce W. Kauffman, and Dilworth, Paxson, Kalish, Kohn & Dilks, for Benjamin B. Ominsky, appellee.

S. Gordon Elkins, with him Stradley, Ronon, Stevens & Young, for Louis Elkins, appellee.

Before Bell, C.j., Musmanno, Jones, Cohen, Eagen and Alpern, JJ.

Author: Bell

[ 405 Pa. Page 438]

OPINION BY MR. CHIEF JUSTICE BELL.

Plaintiff filed a complaint in trespass for libel. From the Order sustaining defendant's preliminary objections and dismissing the complaint, plaintiff took this appeal.

Plaintiff is the editor of the "P.A.R.D. Bulletin", the official publication of the Philadelphia Association of Retail Druggists. Defendant Elkins wrote an article, with the knowledge and approval of defendant Ominsky, which was published in the February, 1960 edition of "Pharmacy Speaks". Plaintiff charged that the following paragraphs in the article libeled him. "Mr. Hyman C. Bogash, Secretary of P.A.R.D.... stalled and maneuvered... and finally got the P.A.R.D. Executive Committee to withdraw the promised cooperation. As a result I could not use the P.A.R.D. Emblem or its Bulletin. Something of great value and due the members was denied YOU because of one individual, Mr. Bogash."

In the April-May 1960 edition of "Pharmacy Speaks" Elkins wrote "Mr. Bogash felt impelled at this

[ 405 Pa. Page 439]

    point, to offer his opinion that the druggist would not cooperate. The net result was that it [the program presented to the pharmacists entitled 'Today's Prescription is the BIGGEST BARGAIN IN HISTORY'] was tabled without due consideration for the merit of the program. What is worse: is that anything this man says or does is sufficient to put the kiss of death on anything presented, unless he places his stamp of approval. It is a matter of men, not daring to raise their voices, lest they find disfavor with him."

Plaintiff contends that the aforesaid articles were false and malicious and intended to bring him into disrepute and contempt among the members of P.A.R.D. and those to whom "Pharmacy Speaks" circulates, and also to the community in general and lowered his reputation by holding him up ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.