
    ANONYMOUS.
    
      N. Y. Supreme Court, First Department;
    
    
      Special Term, and Chambers,
    1881.
    Parties Suing in Forma Pauperis.
    A non-resident will not be allowed to sue in the courts of this State in forma auperis.
    
    Motion for leave to sue as a poor person.
    The plaintiff brought this action against the defendant to recover the sum of $25,000 damages for crim. con.
    
    The complaint alleged “ that in the months of February, March and April, in the year 1880, while the plaintiff was living and cohabiting with and supporting his said wife in West Chester, in the State of Pennsylvania, and while they were living together happily as man and wife, the defendant, as the plaintiff is informed and believes,” &c., at divers times and places committed the acts complained of, by which he lost the affection and society of his wife.”
    After the defendant had appeared in the action by an attorney, but before an answer had been served, the plaintiff applied to the court to be permitted to sue as a poor person.
    
      The petition therefor, among other things, alleged “that he now and for many years last past resided at West Chester, in the State of Pennsylvania.” It also alleged upon information and belief that the defendant had committed the injury for which the action was brought.
    
      S. R. Teneycle, for plaintiff and motion.
    
      William Bro. Smith, for defendant, opposed:—
    Cited, Moody v. Coudy, 2 Hill, 412; Thomas v. Wilson, 6 Id. 257; Isnard v. Cazeau, 1 Paige Ch. 39; Christian v. Gouge, 2 Monthly Law Bulletin, 42.
   Barrett, J.

A non-resident should not be allowed to sue in forma pauperis. It could never have been the legislative intent to extend the privileges of the act to objects of charity from all quarters of the globe. The law even discriminates against non-residents generally, so far as to compel them to give security for costs. Then such statutes should be strictly construed against the applicant (2 Hill, 412). We have found no case directly in point. But in Thomas v. Wilson (6 Hill, 257). Bronson, J., doubted whether a non-resident of the State should be allowed to sue in this manner. We understand, too, that Judge Sedo wick, in Christian y. Gouge, expressed a decided opinion against the right of a foreign pauper thus freely to use our courts and counsel.

Further than this, we are not satisfied that the plaintiff has a good cause of action. The charge is made merely upon information and belief, without disclosing the sources thereof, and no evidence is furnished to justify the charge. The motion must be denied.

There was no appeal. 
      
      The next case reported.
     