
    Edison United Manuf’g Co. v. Hazard et al.
    
    
      (Superior Court of New York City, General Term.
    
    April 7, 1890.)
    Examination of Party before Trial—Inculpatory Evidence.
    The question whether a proposed examination of a party before trial calls for testimony which might be used to subject him to a statutory penalty should be determined on the examination, and not by an appeal from the order directing the examination.
    Appeal from special term.
    Action by the Edison United Manufacturing Company against Rowland Y. Hazard and others. Defendant Hazard appeals from an order denying a motion to vacate an order for his examination as a party before trial.
    Argued before Sedgwick and Dugro, JJ.
    
      Albertus Perry, for appellant. P. Q. Eckerson, for respondent.
   Per Curiam.

The objection taken to the order for defendant’s examination was that the proposed examination might call for testimony that could be used to subject the defendant to a statutory penalty. The order confined" the examination by such limits that it cannot now be said that the apprehended result must happen. In this case it is best that any question as to a privilege by defendant against inculpating himself be determined upon the examination, when his rights will be completely protected. Order affirmed, with $10 costs.  