Case Name: Cadwell vs. Goodenough
Court: New York Superior Court
Jurisdiction: New York
Decision Date: 1864-10
Citations: 2 Rob. 706
Docket Number: 
Parties: Cadwell vs. Goodenough.
Judges: 
Reporter: Reports of cases argued and determined in the Superior Court of the city of New York
Volume: 25
Pages: 706–707

Head Matter:
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.)

Opinion:
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.