I dissent, on the ground that the article is libelous p&r se, and that it is also susceptible of the meaning ascribed to it in the innuendo; *312and I think the innuendo does not limit the plaintiff in his. claims, for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in the ease of Morrison v. Smith (83 App. Div. 206).
Judgment affirmed, with costs, with leave to the plaintiff to amend on payment of costs in this court and in the court below.