
    BIRD v. KREISER.
    (City Court of New York, General Term.
    February 8, 1894.)
    Discovery—Examination of Party before Trial.
    An examination of defendant before trial will not be allowed where it appears that plaintiff’s object is to compel defendant to disclose the evidence by which he intended to establish his defense.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by Joseph Bird against Samuel Kreiser. From an order vacating an order for the examination of defendant before trial, plaintiff appeals.
    The opinion of HEWBURGER, J., at special term is as follows:
    From an examination of the affidavit, order, and pleadings it appears to me that the examination sought is for the purpose of compelling the defendant to disclose the evidence by which he intends to establish his defense. The motion to vacate order herein must therefore be granted. ■ No costs.
    Argued before EHRLICH, C. J., and YAH WYCK and FITZSI-MOHS, JJ._
    C. Bainbridge Smith, for appellant.
    Fromme Bros., for respondent.
   FITZSIMOHS, J.

The order appealed from is affirmed, with costs. The reasons stated by the special term justice in his opinion are sufficient to sustain the order, and are adopted by us. All concur.  