Although it is true that tbe general rule is to allow all interrogataries wbieb may be propounded under a commission, leaving tbe question of tbe admissibility of tbe evidence to be determined at tbe trial where it can be much better and more intelligently done than upon tbe settlement of tbe interrogatories, yet where an interrogatory is clearly irrelevant, and is apparently put for tbe purpose of eliciting information in no way connected with any issue presented by tbe pleadings in tbe action, such interrogatory should not be allowed. Applying this rule to tbe .interrogatories now before tbe court and which are put by tbe plaintiff by way of cross-examination, it would appear that no error was commited in tbe allowance of tbe eighth, ninth and the fli’st paragraph of tbe tenth. There were issues presented which related to the good faith of tbe opera company in tbe charge of plaintiff’s assignment, and also to tbe truth of the statements contained in tbe report signed by tbe defendant as to tbe assets of tbe opera company, and these interrogatories were *388pertinent to these issues. The last clause of the tenth interrogatory and the whole of the fourteenth seem to be improper. The fourteenth in no way tended to elicit any evidence in any way connected with the issues presented in this action, but seems to have been put for the purpose of procuring information which might affect other claims which had been or might be presented against the signers of the report in question.
The order appealed from should be modified, disallowing the last clause of the tenth interrogatory and the whole of the fourteenth, and as so modified affirmed, without costs.
Beady and Daniels, JJ., concurred.
Order modified, as stated in opinion and as so modified affirmed, without costs.