
    Frank S. Gray, App’lt, v. Elliott F. Shepard, Resp’t.
    
      (Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,
    
    
      Filed January 16, 1891.)
    
    Bill of particulars—Pleading.
    An answer denying that plaintiff entered defendant’s employment under the agreement alleged in the complaint, but that he did so under an agreement set forth; that under such agreement he could he discharged for incompetency, etc., and that he was incompetent, is simply a general denial, and the case is not one for a bill of particulars as to the matters alleged in the answer.
    Appeal from order denying plaintiff’s motion for a bill of particulars.
    The complaint alleges that the plaintiff was engaged by the defendant to render his services for a term of five years from May 13, 1888, and that, after performing his services until the 4th of January, 1890, the defendant refused to permit him to continue in bis employ. The answer denies that the plaintiff entered into defendant’s employment under the agreement alleged in the complaint, and affirmatively avers that on or about April 18, 1888, defendant and plaintiff made an agreement, of which a copy is annexed to the answer. Under that agreement the defendant could discharge plaintiff “ for any dishonesty, incompetency, incompatibility or breach of contract; ” and to justify the discharge he alleges that the plaintiff was incompetent, incompatible in his habits and manners to and with the defendant and other persons in his employ, and that he did not deal honestly or fairly with the defendant or with his newspaper and its business and interest, but was active in his own interest and for his own benefit and advantage without regard to the interest of the defendant or his newspaper, and was unfaithful to the trust reposed in him.” Immediately on the service of the answer, plaintiff moved for a bill of particulars upon an affidavit alleging that he had no knowledge or information and could form no opinion of the matters with which he is charged in the answer, and that he could not safely go to trial for want of said knowledge.
    
      A. J. Dittenhoeffer, for app’It; Noah Davis, for resp’t.
   Brady, J.

answer in an expansive manner contains simply a general denial; and, therefore, the case is not one for a bill of particulars.

The order should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.

Van Brunt, P. J., and Daniels, J., concur.  