Case ID: ny-super-ct_25/html/0706-01.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Moncrief, J.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Cadwell vs. Goodenough.
    1. Even if the court has the power to order a bill of particulars, after the issues have been referred to á referee to hear and determine, it will not be exercised to interrupt the progress of the trial actually proceeding before spell referee,
    g. There can be no necessity for a formal written bill of items, where the plaintiff has been partly examined as a witness, although she has not already upon her direct examination disclosed the nature of her claim, since she can be compelled to do so, upon her cross-examination,
    (Before Moncrief, J. at special term,
    October, 1884.)
   Moncrief, J.

This is an application by the defendants for • a bill of particulars of the plaintiff’s demand.

It appears that the action was commenced in July, 1863 ; that issue was joined in August,-1863 ; that the action was referred to Hon. W. F. Allen to hear and determine in November, 1863 ; that the plaintiff has given testimony on her own behalf upon several occasions, and the further trial of the cause stands over for the cross-examination of said plaintiff by the defendants,

The order to show cause why a bill' of particulars should not be furnished, and in the meantime staying all proceedings, would not have been granted had thesé facts been presented to the judge who granted the order; there can be no necessity for a formal written bill of items when the plaintiff, if she has not already upon the direct, can, upon her cross-examination be compelled to disclose the nature of her claim with the nicest particularity.

It was held in Andrews v. Cleveland, (3 Wend. 437,) that when a bill of particulars is applied for by a defendant after issue joined, it is a suspicious circumstance and the officer granting the order should be well satisfied that the object of the party is not delay ; and he should require a good excuse for the late application.

Assuming the court to have the power to order a bill of particulars after the issues have been referred to a referee to hear and determine, I am quite clear that it will" not be exercised to interrupt a trial actually proceeding before him.

The motion must be denied, with $10 costs. The order staying proceedings is vacated.