Clarke v. Fox

New York Supreme Court

Clarke v. Fox

36 N.Y.S. 674, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 298, 71 N.Y. St. Rep. 841, 91 Hun 293

DecidedDecember 2, 1895

StatusPublished

This text of 36 N.Y.S. 674 (Clarke v. Fox) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering New York Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Clarke v. Fox, 36 N.Y.S. 674, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 298, 71 N.Y. St. Rep. 841, 91 Hun 293 (N.Y. Super. Ct. 1895).

Pincite

Opinion

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.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

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.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

36 N.Y.S. 674, 98 N.Y. Sup. Ct. 298, 71 N.Y. St. Rep. 841, 91 Hun 293, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/clarke-v-fox-nysupct-1895.