
    Kiernan v. Abbott, impleaded, etc., appellant.
    
      Examination of party as a witness —pertinency of questions— Contempt.
    
    In an action to enjoin the defendant from surreptitiously obtaining and communicating to another foreign news dispatches sent by Atlantic cable exclu sively to the plaintiff, the defendant, after testifying that the foreign news he so furnished was obtained by him several times each day directly by cable from London, and that the dispatches came to a banking house in New York, from whom he received them, was asked: “ What banking house was that ? ” Held, that the question was proper and pertinent, as the plaintiff had a right to contradict the statement, and to test its accuracy in any legal manner. And that the question being material and competent, the defendant was in contempt for refusing to answer.
    
      Appeal from an order of special term adjudging appellant in contempt for refusing to answer a question put to him on examination before a referee.
    
      N. Curtis White & E. P. Cowles, for appellant.
    
      Buckham, Smales & Walker, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The head-note contains all that is important in the opinion.

Order affirmed.  