
    Katherine Mayer, Respondent, v. Charles F. Mayer, Appellant.
    
      Motion for a bill of particulars—the attorney’s affidavit, when insufficient.
    
    An affidavit, made upon a motion for a bill of particulars, by the attorney for a party to an action, no reason being given why it was not made by the party, is insufficient.
    Appeal, by the defendant, Charles F. Mayer, from an order of the Supreme Court, made at the Hew York Special Term and entered in the office of the clerk of the county of Hew York on the 5th day of April, 1898, directing him to serve a bill of particulars.
    
      
      John T. Sackett, for the appellant.
    
      Julius H. Seymour, for the respondent.
   Pee Curiam:

The affidavit upon which the motion for a bill of particulars is based was made by the plaintiff’s attorney only. No reason is given why it was not made by the plaintiff. It has often been held that such an affidavit is entirely insufficient to warrant the granting of a • bill of particulars. (Van Olinda v. Hall, 82 Hun, 357; Gridley v. Gridley, 7 Civ. Proc. Rep. 215.)

For that reason the order should be reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with ten dollars-costs.

Present ■—Barrett, Rumsey, O'Brien and McLaughlin, JJ.

Order reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and motion denied, with ten dollars costs.  