
    ROSENTHAL v. BARNETT.
    (Supreme Court, Appellate Division, First Department.
    April 16, 1909.)
    Pleading- (§ 317)—Bill of Particulars—Right to Order.
    Where the complaint states the cause of action with sufficient particularity, a bill of particulars, not necessary to protect the rights of the defendant, will not be ordered.
    (Ed. Note.—For other cases, see Pleading, Cent. Dig. § 954; Dec. Dig. § 317.*]
    Appeal from Special Term, New York County.
    Action by Maurice Rosenthal against Aaron Barnett. From an,order requiring plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars, he appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before INGRAHAM, LAUGHLIN, CLARKE, HOUGHTON, and SCOTT, JJ.
    G. S. P. Kleeberg, for appellant.
    Abraham Gruber, for respondent.
    
      
      For other oases see same topic & § number in Dec. & Am. Digs. 1907 to date, & Rep’r Indexes
    
   PER CURIAM.

We think that the complaint states the cause of action with sufficient particularity, and that there is nothing in the papers to show that a bill of particulars is necessary to protect the rights of the defendant.

The order appealed from should be reversed, with $10 costs and disbursements, and the motion denied, with $10 costs.  