
    Tillinghast against King.
    ALBANY,
    Feb. 1827.
    Case for a libel, published in the N. Y, American>
    
    thJvenue^m an action a tort, on the ground that the ⅛ “pari ^™lar must state, not “ause ofaction arose there, but that it did not arise elsewhere; and this actiorT'for^a newspaper li-
    
      J. Blunt, for the defendant,
    moved to change the venue from the county of Erie to the city and county of New-⅝_ , York, on an affidavit that the cause of action, if any, arose in the latter county ; but the affidavit did not add, “ and not elsewhere out of the city and county of New-York.” On this ground, without proceeding to show that the libel had been dispersed in different counties; and agreeing that unless this was shewn, the action being for a tort, the 7 0 . 1 venue must be changed if the affidavit was sufficient;
    
      Jas. Edwards, contra,
    objected that it was insufficient, for want of the words, “ and not elsewhere, &c.”
   Curia.

We think so. The libel may have been, and probably was, dispersed in many counties. Such a circumstance would bring the case within Root v. King, (4 Cowen, 403;) and put the change of venue upon the number of witnesses. The motion must be denied, for the defect in the defendant’s papers.

Motion denied.  