
    SUPERIOR COURT.
    Fleury agt. Roger.
    
    An answer verified, which alleges, that as to the averment in the complaint that the plaintiff is the lawful holder and owner of said promissory note, and that the d dfendant is indebted to him thereon in the sum of $-and interest, “ the defendant has no knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief, and can therefore neither admit nor deny the same,”—held to be sham and frivolous, and stricken out, with $10 costs. (This and the two following decisions seem to be in accordance with the views of Bacon, J., in Ostrom agt. Bixby, ante, p. 57, in reference to striking out a verified pleading.)
    
      May Special Term, 1852.
    Motion to strike out answer. The action was brought on a promissory note,—declaration in the usual form,—containing an allegation that the plaintiff was the lawful holder and owner of the note, &c. The answer alleged a that the defendant has no knowledge to form a belief whether said plaintiff is the lawful owner and holder of the two promissory notes set forth in the complaint in this action, as therein alleged.” And an allegation, hy way of new matter, that at the time of making and giving the notes the plaintiff agreed, that when the notes fell due the defendant might renew them, and give other notes, &c. The pleadings were verified.
    J. B. Coppinger, for Motion.
    
    Mr. Lovell, Opposed.
    
   Bosworth, J.

Held the case under advisement a few days, and ordered the answer to be stricken out as sham and frivolous, with $10 costs.  