
    WILLIAM O’TOOLE, Respondent, v. P. GARVIN and others, Appellants.
    
      Answer — amendments to—when allowed—discretion.
    
    Appeal from an order denying a motion for leave to amend the answer. This case was before the last General Term, held in March,  and it was then decided that the defense interposed by the defendant, that the plaintiff had carried on business under a firm title in violation of 3 Revised Statutes (5 ed., 978, §§ 42,43), not having been set up in the answer, could not be proved upon the trial. Subsequently a motion was made for leave to amend the answer, by setting up this defense, which was denied. The General Term affirmed this order, holding that the application was addressed to the discretion of the court, and that the amendment was not meritorious, the defense which the defendant sought to interpose being a purely technical one.
    
      E D. McCarthy, for the appellant.
    
      J). M. Porter, for the respondent.
    
      
       See ante, p. 92.
    
   Opinion by Beady, J.

Davis, P. J. and Daniels, J., concurred.

Order affirmed, with costs.  