p. 238JACOB ANDERSON, Respondent, v. EUNICE J. DOTY, Appellant.Headnote
Answen' — the verification thereof may he omitted in an action charging the defendant with keeping a hawdy-house.The complaint in this action alleged that the defendant kept a hawdy-house, which was a public nuisance, in the vicinity of houses belonging to the plaintiff, and prayed that the continuance thereof might he enjoined.
Held, that the defendant was entitled, under section 523 of the Code of Oivil Procedure, to serve an unverified answer; and that as her right so to do appeared upon the face of the complaint, it was not necessary for her to serve with her answer an affidavit stating the reasons for omitting the verification.
Appeal from an order made at tbe Monroe Special Term, denying tbe defendant’s motion to require tbe plaiñtiff to accept an unverified answer. ' ■
Tbe complaint is duly verified and alleges tbat the defendant .owns and keeps a bawdy-house, which is used as a resort for lewd men and women for lewd purposes, and a disorderly bouse and a. nuisance, on Exchange street, in tbe city of Rochester, in tbe vicinity of three dwelling bouses owned by tbe plaintiff, and praystbat tbe defendant may be enjoined and restrained from permitting tbe bouse to be used .as a nuisance.
Tbe defendant served an unverified answer, denying all allegations in tbe complaint, except tbe ownership of tbe bouse complained of.
Tbe plaintiff served notice tbat be should treat tbe answer as a nullity, for want of verification; tbe defendant made a motion tbat the plaintiff should be required to accept the answer.
Tbe motion was denied by tbe Special Term, and from such order tbe defendant appeals.
G. M. Allen, for tbe appellant.
D. Yarn, Yoorhees, for tbe respondent.
Tbe complaint charges tbe defendant with doing an unlawful act, which in law constitutes a nuisance and is a crime for which tbe defendant may be indicted and punished. Tbe defendant was priv
p. 239ileged t'o omit a verification of her answer, by virtue of section 523 of tbe Code of Civil Procedure, for tbe reason tbat sbe could, not be compelled to testify as a witness concerning tbe allegation contained in tbe complaint, tbat sbe maintained a bouse of ill-fame. As this appears on tbe face of tbe complaint, it was unnecessary for tbe defendant' to serve with ber answer an affidavit stating tbe reason why sbe claimed tbe right to serve an unverified answer.
(Blaisdell v. Raymond, 5 Abb., 144 ; S. C., 6 id., 148 ;
Wheeler v.
Dixon, 14 How., 151 ;
Lynch v.
Todd, 13 id., 548.)
Tbe case of Roache v. Kivlin ( 25 Hun, 150 ) is not in point, fortbe reason tbat the complaint did not charge tbe .defendant with any act which constituted a crime. In tbat case tbe alleged cause-of action was for a criminal conversation with tbe plaintiff’s wife, and tbe defendant insisted tbat if be was required to testify concerning tbe same it would disgrace him. Tbe court held tbat it could not be assumed, without proof in some form, tbat tbe defendant could not testify as to some of the matters alleged in tbe complaint, without its having a tendency injurious to bis character. A witness is never excused from answering a question for tbe reason tbat bis answer would tend to disgrace him, unless it is made to-appear to tbe court tbat such would be its effect. Therefore, in such a case, if a party claims tbe right to serve an. unverified answer to a verified complaint, it should be aqcompanied by an-affidavit by which it will be made to appear tbat bis admission of any material fact in tbe complaint would tend to bring him into disgrace.
Tbe order appealed from is reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements, and tbe plaintiff required to accept tbe defendant’s unverified answer.
Smith, P. J., and Hardin, J., concurred.
Order denying defendant’s motion to require plaintiff to accept an unverified answer reversed, with ten dollars costs and disbursements.