
    Florice Von Ax Halsted, Resp't, v. Jacob H. Halsted et al., App'lts.
    
      (New York Superior Court, General Term,
    
    
      Filed May 1, 1893.)
    
    Discovery—Letters
    A motion for an inspection and discovery of letters in the plaintiff’s possession is properly denied where it is uncertain whether they contain anything that will benefit defendant if offered in evidence, and the application does not avow specifically that the contents, if learned, will be offered on the trial.
    Appeal from order denying defendant’s motion for inspection of certain letters written to plaintiff and in her possession.
    This action was brought for the admeasurement of dower in certain real property in the city of New York, of which Jacob Halsted died seized.
    The complaint alleges that the plaintiff is the widow of Jacob Halsted; that he died on June the 6th, 1891, leaving him surviving the plaintiff, his widow, and five children who, with said Halsted’s executors, are the defendants herein.
    The answers of the executors and of the other defendants deny upon information and belief that the plaintiff is the widow of said Jacob Halsted.
    The plaintiff furnished a bill of particulars, which is in the words following:
    “The allegation of widowhood in the complaint is founded upon the non-ceremonial marriage contracted and consummated on or about April 4, 1889, in the apartments then occupied by the plaintiff at 356 West Fifty-sixth street, New York city, there being present at the time of the making of the marriage agreement one George Baillard and Helene D’Enghien as witnesses.”
    In a letter written by plaintiff to one of the defendants she enclosed a letter in the handwriting of the late Jacob Halsted, together with sixteen envelopes, stating that the letters contained therein were in her possession. From the postmarks on said envelopes it appeared that said letters were written between July 24, 1888, and December 24, 1890. The defendants thereupon made a motion for an inspection and discovery of the letters written by the said Jacob Halsted contained in said envelopes, which said motion was denied.
    
      John M. Bowers, for app’lts; Lewinson & Falk, for resp’t.
   Per Curiam

There were certain characteristics of the application below which justify the decision that was made. It was .uncertain that the letters contained anything that would benefit the defendants if offered as evidence. Indeed, the contents are undisclosed. The application does not avow specifically that the contents, if learned, will be offered in testimony upon the trial.

Order affirmed, with ten dollars costs.

Sedgwick, Ch. J., and McAdam, J., concur.  