Case ID: abbn-cas_23/html/0432-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Daly, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

TURNER v. BEAVAN.
    
      N. Y. Common Pleas, Special Term ;
    
      October, 1889.
    
      Slander; bill of particulars.] In an action for slander, where it is-uncertain whether statements which the defendant is charged with uttering in different paragraphs of the complaint are parts of the same conversation, the plaintiff may be required to furnish a bill of particulars as to that point, and also as to whether they were made in the presence of the same person or otherwise, and giving the name of one person, other than plaintiff or defendant^ in whose presence such statements were made.
    Albert E. Turner brought this action against Jeffrey Beavan to recover damages for slander. Defendant made-this motion for a bill of particulars.
    
      
      James C. Colgate, for motion.
    
      Henry B. Johnson, opposed.
    
      
       In Stiebeling v. Lockhaus, 21 Hun, 457, this restriction to someone person was not inserted. It was adopted in Dempewolf v. Hills, cited in the principal case as a proper restriction, because it identified the occasion without disclosing the evidence generally.
      For other forms, see 2 Abb. New Pr. & F. 474.
    
   Daly, J.

I will follow the ruling in the case of Dempewolf v. Hills (53 Super. Ct. 105), and order the plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars giving the name of at least one person present at each of the occasions in which the alleged slander was uttered, so that defendant may know with certainty the occasion to which the complaint refers. No costs. 
      
       The order entered required the plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars stating whether the statements alleged in the fifth and tenth, paragraphs of the complaint were parts of the same conversation and made in the presence of the same person or otherwise, and stating-whether such statements or either were made in the presence of any-persons other than fellow employees of the plaintiff or officers of the-company described in the complaint, and if so, giving the name of one • person other than plaintiff and defendant in whose presence such statements were made.