
    PELONSKY v. C. L. PIERSON MFG. CO.
    (City Court of New York,
    General Term.
    October 29, 1900.)
    Pleading—Bill oe Particulars.
    Where the answer of a defendant shows that it has sufficient knowledge of all facts necessary to enable it to proceed with the trial, it is error to grant a motion for a bill of particulars.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by Nathan A. Pelonsky against the C. L. Pierson Manufacturing Company. From an order requiring the plaintiff to file a bill of particulars, he appeals.
    Reversed.
    Argued before FITZSIMONS, C. J., and CONLAN and HAS-CALL, JJ.
    Myers, Goldsmith & Bronner, for appellant.
    Eugene Newman, for respondent.
   PER CURIAM.

The answer of the defendant clearly shows that it had knowledge of all facts necessary to enable it to proceed with the trial herein. It appears to us that the demand for a bill of particulars was made, probably, to delay the speedy trial of this action, as before stated. No bill of particulars was needed to enable it to try the issues formed by the pleadings.

The order appealed from is reversed. Defendant’s motion for bill of particulars denied, with $10 costs and disbursements of this appeal.  