
    Catharine Baker, as Administratrix, etc., Resp’t, v. John N. Sutton et al., App’lts.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
    
    
      Filed May 29, 1895.)
    
    Bill of Particulars — Sufficiency.
    A bill of particulars, in an action to recover damages for causing the death of plaintiff’s intestate, which, after stating certain particulars, alleges “that the defendants were negligent in other respects, whereby plaintiff’s intestate’s death was caused,” is insufficient.
    Appeal from an order denying a motion to require plaintiff to furnish a further bill of particulars.
    The allegations of the complaint as to the happening of the-accident and defendants’ negligence in regard thereto are as follows :
    “Second. That on or about tlioe 8th day of June, 1894, one Warren M. Baker was, and had been for 'some time previous thereto, in the employ of the said defendants as a teamster, engaged in drawing sand and clay on premises belonging to. said defendants in the town of Coeymans; that on said 8th day of June, 1894, while the said Warren M. Baker was engaged in the performance of his duty, and when'in the act of loading his wagon with sand or clay from a sand or clay bank on the premises hereinbefore mentioned, the said sand bank or clay bank at which the0 said Warren M. Baker was working slid or fell upon said Baker, covering said Baker, so that he suffocated and soon after died. Third. That said accident was caused wholly by the carelessness, reckless-, ness, and negligence of the said defendants, and without any fault, or negligence on the part of the said Warren M. Baker contributing thereto.”
    On defendants’ motion plaintiff was ordered to furnish a bill of particulars, showing what carelessness, recklessness, or negligence on the part of the defendants, 'or either of them, caused or contributed to the death of plaintiff’s intestate, as claimed by the plaintiff in this action. In compliance with the order plaintiff served a bill of particulars as follows:
    “First. That the said defeudants negligently permitted the plaintiff’s intestate to work in a dangerous and unsafe place, without notifying him of the unsafe condition of the same. Second. That said defendants did not provide and maintain a safe and suit- . able place for the plaintiff’s intestate to do the work in which he was engaged. Third. That the said defendants did not causea proper inspection of the place in which the plaintiff’s intestate was engaged at work, at the time of the accident, to be made, and when the plaintiff's intestate met his death, on the 8th day of June, 1894. Fourth. That the said defendants were negligent in other respects, whereby plaintiff’s intestate’s death was casued.”
    Thereupon defendants moved-for a further bill of particulars.
    
      Parker & Fiero (Amasa J. Parker, Jr., of counsel), for pl’ff ; Frank H. Osborn, for def’ts.
   Herrick, J.

The office of a bill of particulars is to apprise the adverse party of the specific charges made against him, so that he may know exactly what he must prepare to defend. It serves as an amplification of the pleading, and limits the party making it to proof of the things specified. The fourth clause of plaintiff’s bill, “that the said defendants were negligent in other respects, whereby plaintiff’s intestate’s death was caused,” obviously does not give the defendants any notice of what they must be prepared to meet, upon the trial. Under it no limitation can be imposed as to proof upon the trial. It simply apprises the defendants that, in addition to the matters set forth in the complaint, and in the preceding clauses of the bill, there are other acts of negligence, which she does not in any wise specify, which caused the intestate’s death. The little good there is in the proceeding clauses is absolutely destroyed by the fourth. If it is held good, then, when the trial is had, the plaintiff need not give any proof as to the particulars set forth in the preceding clauses .of the bill, but give evidence under the last clause, which gives no information to the defendants, and which is more general and indefinite than the complaint. The order should be reversed, and an order for a further bill of particulars granted, with $10 costs of motion, and costs and disbursements of this appeal.  