
    Edward S. Stokes, Resp’t, v. William E. D. Stokes, App’lt.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term,, First Department,
    
    
      Filed October 13, 1893.)
    
    Bill of particulars—Libel.
    In an action for libel in which no special damages are claimed a bill of particulars will not be granted. It is no part of the office of a bill of particulars to state the elements which may enter into the general damages which may be recovered in such an action.
    Appeal from order denying a motion for a bill of particulars.
    The complaint alleges three separate causes of action for three several alleged libels, for which plaintiff demands $250,000 damages. The first alleged libel is a letter by defendant to the editor of the New York Herald, and published in that newspaper; the second alleged libel is the publication, in a complaint in an action in this court, of two written communications signed by defendant and a codirector of a corporation known as the “ Hoffman House,” addressed to plaintiff as president, and to a Mr. Cornish as secretary, of the Hoffman House, concerning the management of the affairs of that corporation; and the third alleged libel is that, after publishing the complaint in said action, defendant caused the same to be served on plaintiff and the other defendants in said action, and that said complaint contained “ a large mass of irrelevant, impertinent and scandalous matter.” On May 15, 1893, defendant served a demurrer to the first cause of action, and an answer to-each of the other two causes of action, and on the same day gave notice of motion for a bill of particulars.
    Defendant’s notice of motion for a bill of particulars is as follows : “ Take notice that upon the pleadings herein, and upon the affidavit of which a copy is hereto annexed, we shall move this-court, at chamber's thereof at the county court house in this city, at the opening of court on the 24th day of May, 1893, that plaintiff be required and directed to furnish defendant a bill of the particulars of the claim of plaintiff herein, set forth at the conclusion of the complaint herein, as follows: ‘ That by reason of the premises the plaintiff has been injured in his reputation and credit and property to his damage in the sum of $250,000, in the following matters and particulars, to wit: The pecuniary extent of plaintiff’s injury and damage in his reputation as to each of the three-separate causes of action set forth in the complaint. The pecuniary extent of plaintiff's injury and damage in bis credit as to-each of said three separate causes of action, giving the names and places of business of the persons whose credit he has lost, and the dates, places, amounts and details of such losses in each case as to each of such persons. The pecuniary extent of plaintiff’s-injury and damage in his property as to each of said three separate causes of action, giving the dates, places, amounts and details thereof, and the particular property or properties which sustained such loss or damage ; and for such other and further-bill of particulars of the damage and injury claimed in the complaint herein as may be just.’’
    
      Holmes & Adams (Artemus H. Holmes, of counsel), for app’lt; John J. Adams, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam.

This is an action for a recovery of general damages for the publication of matter alleged to be defamatory. Three independent causes of action are set forth in the complaint.. The amount of -the damages which the plaintiff claims to have sustained by each cause of action is not stated, but it is alleged that the plaintiff has sustained $250,000 damages by reason of the three causes of action stated. No special damages are claimed. The defendant-moved for an order requiring the plaintiff to serve a bill of the. particulars of the damages sustained by him, which was denied. In such cases the plaintiff cannot be compelled to state how much he claims for loss of reputation, for injured feelings, or how much he claims by reason of the personal ill will of the defendant. It is no part of the office of a bill of particulars to state the elements which may enter into the general damages which may be recovered in such an action. The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Yah Bruht, P. J., Rollett and Parker, JJ., concur.  