
    JOHN J. CORBETT, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. LOUIS DE COMEAU, Defendant and Respondent.
    
    Before Curtis, Ch. J., and Freedman, J.
    
      Decided December 1, 1879.
    
      1. Order compelling plaintiff's attorney to disclose residence, occupation and business address of plaintiff, and staying proceedings.
    
    A court may in a proper case make suck, an order (Corbett v. Gibson, 18 Hun, 49).
    Appeal from order compelling plaintiff’s attorney to disclose residence, occupation, and present address of plaintiff, and staying plaintiff’s proceedings until full compliance with the order.
    The action is for libel, and was commenced by service of a summons—without a complaint.
    Two similar applications have been made herein, the first of which was denied on the ground that no complaint had been served, and the second on the ground that “ some specific object at least should be shown.” The affidavit on behalf of defendant states that the complaint has been served, and further, “ It is sought to make a new application upon facts raising a presumption that the plaintiff is a non-resident, and is not cognizant of these proceedings, and for the specific object hereinafter stated, viz:
    ‘ ‘ To examine the plaintiff, either before trial or upon the trial, if in the country, or by commission if he is abroad, and show:
    “ 1. Whether or not the plaintiff is a willing party to this action, and the real party in interest.
    
      
      “2. That the plaintiff is in fact what it is alleged that he has been charged to be (?'. e., insane).
    “3. That the allegations alleged to be made by the defendant in the complaint herein are, if proved to have been made, true.
    
    “And further, to secure, if possible, the attendance of the plaintiff upon the trial, in order that the jury may have an opportunity of judging of the plaintiff by his manner and appearance upon the stand, and lastly, to obtain security for costs in case it appears that the plaintiff is in fact a non-resident.”
    The judge below, in rendering his decision on the question herein, made the following memorandum:
    Speir, J.—Upon an examination of the papers and the opinion of the general term of the second district, in the case of Corbett v. Gtibson, I am not disposed to review the decision of that court.
    Let an order be entered making the same disposition in this case on notice.
    
      W. Frank Severance, for appellant.
    
      Coudert Bros., for respondent.
    
      
       See ante, p. 588.
    
   Per Curiam.

The order appealed from should be affirmed with costs.  