
    LEONARD D. TICE, Appellant, v. FRANK DROMGOOLE and ANNA F. DROMGOOLE, Respondents.
    
      fflndence — a pan'ty cannot impeach his own witness by proving contradictory statements made by him.
    
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of the defendants, entered upon the verdict of a jury, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial made upon the minutes of the justice before whom the action was tried.
    . This action was brought for the recovery of damages for a libel, alleged to have been published by defendants concerning the plaintiff. The charge was, in substance, that the plaintiff, who was a coroner of Westchester county, was drunk while holding an inquest on one Banks who had committed suicide.
    The court at General Term said: “ Upon the trial, one George Carpenter was called as a witness for tbe defendants, wbo testified that he considered the plaintiff a sober man during the inquest. Tbe defendant then put to tbe witness tbis question: Did you not tell Albert Sarles that be was drunk there? The question was objected to, admitted, and the plaintiff excepted. Tbe witness said: ‘ I won’t deny but what I might have said in a humorous way that the coroner was drunk.’ Tbe question was an improper one. A party is not permitted to impeach his own witness. He- may show be is mistaken and contradict him as to the particular fact which be testifies to be true. (Thompson v. Blanchard, 4 N. Y., 303; People v. Safford, 5 Denio, 112; Sanchez v. The People, 22 N. Y., 147; Polloeh v. Polloeh, 71 id.-, 138.), The party asserts or admits the credibility of the witness he puts upon the stand.”
    
      Cooper & Bach, for tbe appellant.
    
      I. T. Williams, for tbe respondents.
   Opinion by

Barnard, P. J.;

Dteman, J., concurred; Pratt, J.,

not sitting.

Judgment and order denying new trial reversed and new trial granted, costs to abide event.  