Huntoon v. Jerkowski — 36 N.Y. St. Rep. 560

Majority

p. 560

John E. Huntoon, Resp’t, v. Marcus Jerkowski, App’lt.

(Supreme Court, General Term, First Department,

Filed January 16, 1891.)

Headnote

Depositions—Examination before trial.

In an action upon a check, which the answer alleges was given for a gaming debt, statements in an affidavit to'procure the examination of. de

p. 561

fendant before trial to the effect that such check was given on surrender of a note given for advances made for defendant at his request; that defendant took away the contracts and and memoranda showing their transactions; that plaintiff had no other account of them or of the advances and desired to examine defendant to prove those facts, and that defendant had special knowledge of some of the facts not possessed by any one else and that such testimony was material and necessary, sufficiently show the necessity of the examination of defendant to enable plaintiff to secure information which will lead to the production of the contracts and memoranda on the trial.

Appeal from an order denying a motion to vacate an order directing an examination of the defendant as a witness before trial.

Blumenstiel & Hirsch, for app’lt; S. A. Ten Eyck, for resp’t.

The plaintiff’s cause of action is a check made by the defendant, to the order of, and delivered to the plaintiff, for the sum of $1,040. By the second defence contained in the answer, it is alleged that the check was given on account of a gambling and wager contract, and for an illegal consideration, to discharge that contract. The plaintiff has stated in his affidavit for the order directing the defendant to appear for examination that he was indebted to him upon a promissory note which was surrendered when the check was received. That he had advanced money for the defendant at his request and for his benefit, and the note was given for the amount owing for those advances and as the result of a settlement which then took place.

It is also added that the defendant then took away with him contracts and memoranda which were up to that time in the possession of the plaintiff, showing their transactions, and from which the amount owing had been ascertained. That he had no other account of them, or of his advances, and desired to examine the defendant to prove those facts, and that there was a good consideration for the check, and that it was not given for the cause alleged by him. It was also stated that the defendant had special knowledge of some of the facts not possessed by anyone else, and that the testimony was material and necessary for the plaintiff, who intended to use the examination upon the trial of the action.

These statements presented a case in which it is fairly evident that the examination of the defendant is necessary to obtain evidence for the plaintiff on the trial of the action. For without it the custodian of the contracts and memoranda mentioned may be wholly unknown to him, and they may be unattainable by him when the trial shall take place. He has the right to fortify himself against that uncertainty by obtaining from the defendant previous knowledge of them, and of the means which may become necessary for their production at the trial; without that he may fail in his action for the want of this evidence, when with the information he would otherwise be able to succeed. He is not entitled by this proceeding to secure their production on the examination, but he should be permitted to obtain the information which will lead to that production when they may be regularly required, as evidence in his behalf. They are as much his prop

p. 562

erty as they are the property of the defendant, and he should be allowed to avail himself of the knowledge the defendant has concerning them, before the exigencies of the trial shall be brought before him.

.Beyond that the facts which may be known to the defendant as to the advances of money, finally forming the consideration of the check, are equally if not still more important by way of evidence for the plaintiff. And he may be well allowed to obtain that proof in this manner, and thereby enabled to meet the defense alleged if the facts will warrant that result.

The right of the plaintiff to this examination is quite consistent with all that has been said in the cases of Williams v. Foster, 16 Civil Pro., 429, and Williams v. Folsom, 52 Hun, 68 ; 22 N. Y. State Rep., 507. Special circumstances appeared in support of the order, disclosing the necessity of the examination before the trial. And it should be affirmed, with ten dollars costs and the disbursements.

Yak Brunt, P. J., and Brady, J., concur.