
    PORTER v. DAILEY.
    Costs — bill of discovery — cause—gaming statute — f-ull answer.
    Costs will not be decreed'the complainant on a bill for discovery, unless cause ' is shown for resort to the bill, as that the information was requested and refused.
    The gaming statute of Ohio makes no difference.
    When a bill for discovery is fully answered, and no special cause shown for resorting to chancery, it will be dismissed with costs to the defendant.
    Chancbrv. The bill alleges the loss of $200 in gambling with the defendant. That he brought a suit at law, but finds it difficult, if not impossible to make proof, without a discovery from the defendant, and calls upon him to answer on oath how much money 760] *he won from him. Dailey, in his answer, admits the playing, but declares it out of his power to tell how much he lost ox-won, or which way the balance of the amount is.
    
      Starling and Gilbert for the complainant,
    cited 29 O. L. 442; 3 Ves. jr. 423; 1 Mad. Ch. Pr. 196.
    
      G. Swan, contra,
    insisted that costs should be refused unless where it appeared the complainant had requested the information sought before bill, and had been refused, or other cause compelled a resort to chancery: (4 John. Ch. 504.) On a bill for discovery, the plaintiff pays all costs, unless there are particular reasons for coming into this court: 1 Mad. Ch. 217; 1 Mad. 344; 8 Ves. 70; 9 Ves. 108.
   WRIGHT, J.

No cause appears for coming here with a bill of discovery. It is not alleged that the information had been requested and refused. Costs are not allowed unless the reason is shown fox-coming here: (4 John. Ch. 504; 9 Pes. 103.) The statute makes no difference. The bill being answered, and no exception taken, is dismissed with costs to the defendant.  