
    Ottman v. Griffin et al.
    
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Second Department.
    
    July 2, 1889.)
    Pleading—Bill op Particulars.
    In a suit to recover chattels, an order was entered for a hill of particulars, requiring plaintiff to give the number, description, and value of the articles sued for, and the names of the parties to whom delivered, and their residence, and to state, if she does not know as to such matters, why she has no knowledge. Held, that the order should be modified so as to require only the number, description, and value of the articles.
    Appeal from city court of Yonkers.
    Bosa Ottman sued to recover certain masquerade suits leased by her to defendants, John Griffin and Ferdinand Gamjost. Defendants pleaded a general denial, and asked for a bill of particulars. The order of the court was that the bill be furnished by plaintiff, “giving the number, description, and value of the articles which she sues to recover, and the names of the persons to whom the same were delivered, and as fully as she may be able the residence of each of such persons, and as to each of such matters as she shall not be able so to state she must state in writing that she does not know, and never did know, and why she has not knowledge.” From this order plaintiff appeals.
    Argued before Barnard, P. J., and Dyicman and Pratt, JJ.
    /. C. <& W. J. Donohue, for appellant. R. E. & A. J. Prime & Burns, for respondents.
   Dykman, J.

This is an appeal from an order of the city court of Yonkers, requiring the plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars, and we think the order requires too much. It is the office of a bill of particulars to specify the items of the claim set up in a pleading, and apprise the opposite party of the particulars of the claim. But a party cannot be required to furnish the evidence by which his claim is to be established upon the trial. The defendant can require no more in this action than the number, description, and value of the .articles which the plaintiff seeks to recover. All the other requirements of the order should be stricken out, and, as so modified, the order should be affirmed, without costs to either party on this appeal.  