Case ID: ny-super-ct_51/html/0538-02.html
Source: Caselaw Access Project
Author: {"author": "Per Curiam.", "license": "Public Domain", "url": "https://static.case.law/"}
Date Created: 2024-08-24T03:29:51.129683

Horace W. Barton, respondent, v. Robert Caterson, appellant.
    Decided February 2, 1885.
    Appeal by defendant from an order denying his motion for a further bill of particulars.
    Augustus O. Brown, for appellant.
    Richard S. Newcombe, for respondent.
    Before Sedgwick, Oh. J., Truax and O’Gorman, JJ.
   Per Curiam.

As it is not manifest that the court should have used its discretion, otherwise than by denying the motion, the order is affirmed, with $10 costs and disbursements to be taxed.