
    Jacob Cohn, Respondent, v. Charles A. Baldwin, Defendant; Frank E. Baldwin, Appellant, et al.
    Where an order of General Term affirming an order of Special Term which denied a motion for a bill of particulars, does not state the ground for the denial, it will be assumed that it was in the exercise of the discretion of that court, and so, the order may not be reviewed here.
    The opinion of the General Term may not be looked to to ascertain the ground. „
    .(Argued January 15, 1894;
    decided January 23, 1894.)
    Appeal from order of the General Term of the Supreme Court in .the third judicial department, made December 6, 1893, which .affirmed an order of Special Term denying a ¡motion for a bill of particulars.
    The following is the opinion in full:
    “ The defendants made a motion at Special Term that the plaintiff be required to furnish their attorneys a bill of particulars of the claims set forth in his complaint. The motion was based upon .the .complaint .and an affidavit of one of the defendants’ attorneys, and was opposed upon an affidavit made by the plaintiff. The court denied the motion and its. order was affirmed by the order of the General Term.
    
      “ It does not appear from the orders upon what ground the courts below proceeded in denying the motion. We cannot look at the opinion of the General Term for that ground, and as they could have denied the motion in the exercise of their discretion upon facts appearing, we must assume that it was so denied; and that we have no jurisdiction to review the exercise of their discretion has been held many times by this court- “ The appeal must, therefore, be dismissed.”
    
      Cluwies II. Mills for appellant.
    
      Ma/rh Golm for respondent.
   Per Curiam

opinion for dismissal of appeal.

All concur.

Appeal dismissed.  