
    Clinton against Croswell
    Id an action for a libel, the court will not, on the common affidavit, change the venue from the county in which circulated to that in which printed and first published.
    This was an action for publishing a libel.
    
      Hopkins, on the common affidavit,
    moved to change the venue from the city and county of New York to the county of Greene.
    
      Hiker, contra,
    read an affidavit by the plaintiff stating that he resides in New York, and that the suit was brought for the publication of a libel in a newspaper, published in the county of Greene, by the defendant, and which he saw exposed to the view of many persons in this city, and that the plaintiff verily believed the defendant was the editor or printer of said paper. On these facts it was insisted, that the affidavit of the cause of action arising wholly in the county of Greene was not correct, because wherever the paper circulated a right of action accrued. It was contended to be of more importance to an individual to protect his character against libels disseminated in the place of his residence, than in a remote part where he might be scarcely known. Therefore, in Pinkney v. Gollins, 1D&E, 571, the court refused to change the venue from the place where the libel was circulated to that where printed.
   Per Curiam.

There is no ground for the application. The defendant can take nothing by his motion, and must pay costs to the plaintiff.

Motion denied. 
      
       Change of venue in an action for libel dispersed in different counties will bo denied, unless there is a decided preponderance of witnesses, &c. Root v. King, 4 Cow. 403; see Nicholson v. Northrop, 3 J. R. 189.
     