Case Name: Milton Kerch, App'lt, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Co., Resp't
Court: New York Supreme Court, General Term
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1888-02
Citations: 14 N.Y. St. Rep. 446
Docket Number: 
Parties: Milton Kerch, App’lt, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Co., Resp’t.
Judges: 
Reporter: New York State Reporter
Volume: 14
Pages: 446–447

Head Matter:
Milton Kerch, App’lt, v. The Rome, Watertown and Ogdensburg Railroad Co., Resp’t.
(Supreme Court, General Term, Third Department,
Filed February, 1888.)
Bill or particulars—When obtainable—What to contain.
This action was brought to obtain damages for injuries alleged to have een caused by defendant’s negligence in blowing of steam from one of its engines, and sounding its whistle, whereby the plaintiff’s horse, attached to a vehicle, which he was driving, became frightened and overturned the' vehicle and injured him. Held, that upon motion duly, made for that purpose, the defendant was entitled to a "bill of particulars, specifying the day, hour and place of the alleged injury, and the direction in which the plaintiff was driving, but that the plaintiff was not obliged to furnish the defendant with the names of the witnesses by whom he proposed to establish his case.
Conger & Orvic, for app’lt; Dart & Erwin, for resp’t.
Appeal from an order requiring the plaintiff to furnish a bill of particulars.
The plaintiff alleges in his complaint at folio 11, of case: “That on or about the 14th day of December, 1886, while the plaintiff was traveling in a buggy drawn by one horse along the public highway, being rightfully therein, near Dekalb Junction, St. Lawrence county, N. Y., at which place defendant’s railroad track crosses said highway, and when plaintiff was approaching said crossing, and about to pass over the same, the defendant, its employees and servants in charge of one of defendant’s locomotives which stood on defendant’s track near plaintiff, unnecessarily, negligently and carelessly sounded the locomotive whistle, and blew off steam from said locomotive towards said horse, thereby frightening said horse, etc.”
The defendant by his affidavit, states in substance, that the defendant, by reason of the uncertainty of the plaintiff’s complaint as to time and place, is unable to put in an answer thereto, or to ascertain what engineer or locomotive caused the injury complained of, or what necessity, if any, required the blowing off of steam at the time alleged. That Dekalb Junction is, as its name imports, a junction of two roads, and a large number of engines are in use there, and defendant asks a bill of particulars as to the time, place, etc.

Opinion:
Landon, J.
We see no occasion to interfere with the order of the special term, so far as it requires the plaintiff to specify the day, hour, and place of the alleged injury, and in what direction the plaintiff was driving. These particulars may be necessary to enable the defendant to understand definitely when and where the alleged injury occurred, and by which of its agents or engines it was caused. But the plaintiff is not obliged to furnish the defendant with the names of the witnesses by whom he proposes to establish his case. We, therefore, affirm the order as to its paragraphs, numbered 1, 2,10 and 11, and the first sentence of the paragraph numbered 3, and reverse as to the other numbered paragraphs without costs.
Learned, P. J., and Ingalls, J., concur.