Martin v. Spofford, 3 Abb. N.C. 125; Parsons v. Belden, 9 id. 54. It is unnecessary to question these decisions, as this is simply an application before trial with incidental resort to books and papers. Smith v. MacDonald, 1 Abb. N.C. 350; Savage v. Neely, 8 A.D. 316. What the plaintiff would be permitted to do on the trial he may now do under the subpœna duces tecum. Horst v. D.G. Yuengling Brewing Co., 1 A.D. 629.