
    HENRIETTA DEMPEWOLF, Appellant, v. WILLIAM HILLS, Respondent.
    
      Bill of particulars.—Slander.
    
    It is not the office of a bill of particulars to apprise the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff’s proofs or of the names of his witnesses.
    Accordingly, where in an action for slander averred to have been spoken “ in the presence and hearing of divers persons,” upon defendant’s demand, a bill of particulars, showing the specific time and place of the slander, was given, and defendant thereupon obtained an order that plaintiff serve a statement in writing of the names of all the persons in whose presence or hearing the slander was uttered,—Held,, that the order should be so modified, as to require the plaintiff to furnish the name of some one person in whose presence plaintiff claims the slander was uttered.
    Before Sedgwick, Oh. J., and Tbuax, J.
    
      Decided March 1, 1886.
    Appeal by plaintiff from order directing plaintiff to serve a further bill of particulars.
    The facts appear in the opinion.
    
      Marshall P. Stafford, for appellant.
    I. The sole purpose of a bill of particulars in an action for slander is that the defendant may have the time and place at which the words were spoken pointed out so definitely and distinctly that he may know with certainty the occasion to which the complaint refers (Jones v. Platt, 60 How. Pr. 278; Solomon v. Stock Ech’ge, 49 Super. Ct. 139 ; Butler v. Mann, 9 Abb. N. C. 49). The bill of particulars already served in this case tells the defendant that the words complained of were spoken in his own place of business in the city of New York on March 5, 1885.
    II. The order appealed from would tend to establish a most unjust and pernicious rule of practice (Butler v. Man, supra). Even if the name of some one individual were necessary to enable the defendant to know the occasion referred to, the plaintiff ought not to be compelled to give him the names of all the persons she proposes to call as witness on the question of uttering the slander.
    
      Edward S. Clinch, for respondent.
    The general term of the first department has held that the bill of particulars demanded was proper (Stiebeling v. Lockhaus, 21 Hun, 457 ; Gardinier v. Knox, 27 Id. 500).
   Per Curiam.

The complaint was upon an alleged slander of plaintiff by defendant, averred to have been spoken “in the presence and hearing of divers persons.” The defendant demanded a bill of the particulars of the time and place of the slander. This was served without any information as to the names of persons in whose presence or hearing the slander was claimed to have been uttered. The order appealed from was then made, that plaintiff serve “a statement in writing, of the names of the persons in whose présence or hearing ” the plaintiff claimed the slander was uttered.

The defendant claimed that the order was necessary to enable him to draw his answer and prepare for trial. Less than the names of all persons claimed to have been present, would enable the defendant to draw a truthful answer which would deny or admit the slander. And to prepare for trial, it was not necessary to do more than specify a particular occasion, to which the defendant might direct his preparation. It is not the office of a bill of particulars, to apprise the defendant of the nature of the plaintiff’s proof, or of the names of his witnesses. On the trial, it would not be just that the plaintiff should fail because of some person, among others ■ named in the bill, not being present, although there might be no doubt that the speaking relied on by plaintiff was the one actually referred to in the bill served. The order made below should be so modified, that it require a further bill to give the name of some person in whose presence the plaintiff claims the words were spoken.

The order, as modified, is affirmed, with $10 costs to abide event.  