
    Christopher Clarke, Respondent, v. Richard K. Fox, Appellant.
    
      Slander — improper charge in regard to repetitions thereof.
    
    Where an action is brought to recover damages resulting from the publication of slanderous words, and there is no proof in the case that the slander was repeated, it is erroneous for the court, to charge the j ury that the originator of a slander is responsible for its repetitions and that they must inquire carefully to what extent, if at all, under the proof, the alleged slander had traveled. Such a charge invites the jury to give damages upon a mistaken basis.
    Appeal by the defendant, Richard K. Fox, from a judgment of the Supreme Court in favor of the plaintiff, entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Kings on the 30th day of April, 1895, upon the verdict of a jury rendered after a trial at the Kings County Circuit, and also from an order entered in said clerk’s office on the 6th day of May, 1895, denying the defendant’s motion for a new trial made upon the minutes.
    This action was brought to recover- damages for slanderous remarks alleged to have been made by the defendant about the plaintiff.
    
      Charles J. Patterson, for the appellant.
    
      John S. Griffith, for the respondent.
   Pratt, J.:

Tbe court charged the jury that the originator of a slander is responsible for the repetitions of such slander, and that it 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 was invited to give damages upon this mistaken basis. The exception taken was sufficient.

The judgment must be reversed and a new trial ordered, with costs to abide event.

Brown, P. J., and Dykman, J., concurred.

Judgment reversed and new trial ordered, costs to abide the event.  