Emspak v. Conroy

A bill of particulars, purporting to be in compliance with an order of this court dated March 12, 1948, was *638served upon the defendants who now move for a further bill with respect to item 30, and that the entire bill of particulars be verified by the general secretary-treasurer or some other officer of the plaintiff union having knowledge of the facts.

Plaintiff’s attorney in his opposing affidavit states that the omission of a response to item- 30 was an unintentional oversight and that he will furnish the information. He urges, however, that the bill of particulars as served was properly…