
    Frederick R. Myers, App’lt, v. Moses S. Rosenback, Resp’t.
    
    
      (New York Common Pleas, General Term,
    
    
      Filed June 4, 1894.)
    Pleadings—Amendment—District court.
    Hatter of supplemental pleading may be incorporated in the answer by amendment in the district court.
    Appeal from order allowing matter of supplemental pleading to be incorporated in the answer by amendment
    
      Hamilton R. Squier, for app’lt; Horwitz & Hershfield (Otto Horwitz, of counsel,) for resp’t.
    
      
      Affirming, 58 St. Rep. 513.
    
   Pryor, J.

The distinction between an amended and a supplemental answer, is only in the time when the matter of the defense occurred or came to the knowledge of the pleader. But, time does not affect the substance of the defense. If good in an amended it is good in a supplemental answer; and if good in a supplemental it is good in an amended answer. To incorporate in an answer supplemental matter by way of amendment, violates only a technical rule of pleading, and is without effect upon the substantial rights of the parties. If is the distribution of substantial justice, however, irrespective' of formal rules of- procedure, that is the function of the district courts in disposing of the litigation before them. -Were they to be fettered by all the technical and redondito rules of practice with which judges and counsellors in courts of records are presumed to be conversant, they would surely miscarry in the attainment of that “cheap and speedy justice” which is the end of their institution. We are content to affirm the order on the opinion at special term.

Order affirmed, with costs and-disbursements.

Bookstayer, P. J., and Bischoff, J., concur.  