
    Sarah A. M. Kirby, Respondent, v. Charles H. Kirby, Appellant.
    
      Bill of particulars not granted in an action for alienating a husband’s affections by depreciating his wife.
    
    A bill of particulars should .not be granted iu an action brought by a wife, in which she charges her husband’s uncle with no other improprieties than that he had alienated her husband’s affections and had broken up her home by a continued depreciation of the plaintiff as his wife.
    Appeal by the defendant, Charles H. Kirby, from' an order of the Supreme Coiirt, made at the Dutchess County Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Dutchess on the 10th day of August, 1898, denying the defendant’s motion for a hill of particulars.
    
      Charles F. Cossum, for the appellant.
    
      Frank B. Lown, for the respondent.
    Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, on opinion of Barnard, J.,' at Special Term.
    All concurred.
   The following is the opinion' of Barnard, J., at Special Term:

Barnard, J.:

A bill of particulars would be a difficult matter to frame in an action such as this. A wife charges her husband’s uncle with alienating her husband’s affection and breaking up her home. There is no impropriety alleged other than a continued depreciation of the plaintiff as a wife. Such a complaint must be made out by proof presumably of many instances and probably on many occasions; here a little and there a little. The general allegation is made: You depreciated me to my husband and destroyed my happiness. Such a general charge can be easily met.

Motion denied, with ten dollars costs to abide event.  