
    The State ex rel. Carpenter, Appellant, vs. Mathys, Respondent.
    
      May 16
    
    June 19, 1902.
    
    
      Appealable order: Examination of party.
    
    An order denying a motion to limit the scope of the examination of a party under sec. 4096, Stats. 1898, is not appealable, even though it imposes costs of motion.
    Appeal from an order of the circuit court for Pierce county: E. W. Helms, Circuit Judge.
    
      Appeal dismissed.
    
    The relator obtained a writ of certiorari from the circuit court for Pierce county by which he sought to review the action of the board of review of the village of Maiden Rock. Before making return to the writ, the respondent obtained an order for the examination of the relator, under sec. 4096, Stats. 1898. Thereupon the relator made a motion before the circuit court “to limit the subjects of the examination of the relator herein.” This motion was denied, with $10 costs of motion. The relator appeals from such order.
    The cause was submitted for the appellant on the brief of Walter C. Owen.
    
    Eor the .respondent there was a brief by Baker & Haven, and oral argument by Spencer Haven.
    
   Baudeeh, J.

Subd. 3, sec. 3069, State. 1898, provides that an appeal may be taken “when an order grants, refuses, continues or modifies a provisional remedy.” The order appealed from herein denies the relator’s motion to limit the subjects as to which he is sought to1 be examined under sec. 4096. It neither’ “grants, refuses, continues or modifies a provisional remedy,” as mentioned in the section first cited, and is therefore not appealable. The fact that the court required the relator to pay costs of motion does not bring the case within the provisions of the statute as it now exists.

By the Court. — The appeal is dismissed.  