
    CLARKE v. FOX.
    (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    December 2, 1895.)
    Slander—Liability for Repetition—Instructions.
    A charge that the originator of a slander is responsible for its repetition, where there is no evidence of repetition, invites the jury to give damages on a mistaken basis, and is erroneous.
    Appeal from circuit court, Kings county.
    Action by Christopher Clarke against Richard K. Fox for slander. From a judgment entered on a verdict in favor of plaintiff, and from an order denying a motion for a new trial, defendant appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before BROWN, P. J, and DYKMAN and PRATT, JJ.
    Howe & Hummel, for appellant.
    John S. Griffith, for respondent.
   PRATT, J.

The court charged the jury that the originator of a slander is responsible for the repetitions, and that they must inquire carefully to what extent, if at all, under the proof, the alleged slander had traveled. In this respect the charge was erroneous. There was no proof that the slander had been repeated, and the jury were invited to give damages upon this mistaken basis. The exception taken was sufficient.

Judgment reversed, and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide event. All concur.  