But the averment that plaintiff "was greatly injured in his good name and credit among merchants in the City of New York and elsewhere and also among his friends and acquaintances," is an allegation of general damage. ( Evins v. Metropolitan Street R. Co., 47 App. Div. 511, 513.) It does not say that any one has refused to trade with plaintiff, or has declined to extend him credit in any transaction. Particulars of such general damage are not required. The order denying motion for a further bill of particulars is, therefore, affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements. Jenks, P.J., Thomas, Carr, Stapleton and Putnam, JJ., concurred. Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.
There was no dispute about the facts, and the question of probable cause is a question of law for the court. Brown v. McBride, 24 Misc. 235; following, Wright v. Bank of Metropolis, 110 N.Y. 249; Palmer v. Palmer, 8 A.D. 331; Anderson v. How, 116 N.Y. 336; Hazard v. Flurry, 120 id. 223; Shipman v. Learn, 92 Hun, 558; Evins v. Metropolitan St. R. Co., 47 A.D. 511. There is evidence sufficient to show that there had been some ill feeling between the parties and that it probably existed at the time of the arrest.