Case ID: ny-sup-ct_14/html/0083-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Talcott, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

MARY B. DISTIN, Respondent, v. HILEND R. ROSE, Appellant.
    
      Slander — proof of— malice.
    
    In an action of slander, proof of a reiteration of the slander for which the action is brought, on an occasion other than that alleged in the complaint, is admissible as evidence of malice, and to enhance the damages. {Howard v. Sexton, 4 N. Y., 157; Johnson v. Brown, 57 Barb., 118.)
    Such evidence is admissible, though the slanderous words be actionable per se, fertile purpose of enhancing the damages. {Fry v. Bennett, 28 N. Y., 324.)
    Appeal from a judgment in favor of tlie plaintiff, entered upon the verdict of a jury.
    
      Edward Crummey, for the appellant. G. & G. H. Williams, for the respondent.
   Opinion by

Talcott, J.

Present — Barnard, P. J., Talcott and Pratt, JJ.

Judgment and order denying new trial affirmed, with costa