The New York herald., 1874-12-30

alpaca skirt, q wooen dress and polonaise; and
one trunk containing wearing apparel and other
articles. These goods were imported by the
steamer Java.
IL is understood between counsel that the mo.
ton for new trial In the case OF Moses Chamber.
lain, who has been recently convicted OF sending
scurrilous postal cards through the mails, Will be
argued before Judge Benedict on Saturday next.
THE BEECHER-TILTON CASE.
JUDGE McUE's ORDER FOR A BILL OF PAR
TIcULAIs REyERsED-oPrNIoNs OF JUDGES
NELSON AND REYNOLDS.
In the Brooklyn CITY Court, General Term, the
case OF Theodore Tiiton Henry Ward Beecher
was brought UP by the delivery OF the following
opinions OF Jud. .es Nelson and Reynolds ou the
argument o. counsel against the order OF Judge
McCue granting bull Of particulars to the defend
ant ID the case. The court room was crowded by
many distinguished gentlemen, who came to hear
the opinions delivered. 1t is expected that the
trial will proceed on Monday next unless some
thing unexpected now should happen TO prevent.
The opinion OF Judge Nelson reads as folows-
This rs an appeal from an order OF the Special
Term requiring the p!aintlf to furnish a bill OF
particulars
The Application Tor the particulars was made
before me In the Arst instance, aud was denied
stated The opinion MED win tnat order did
expressly put that denial OF one branch OF the ap
confessions imputed to and denied by the deiend-
ant. 1t was shown tnat the plaintiu had stated
confessed the wrongful acts charged, and The ap-
plicat.on to compel the plaintiff TO state wnen
made. The views expressed in the opinion to
The uatenaDle character OF that part OF the appli-
cation ana as 10 tie want OF power to grant it
were accepted By the defendants COUNSEL ana
that claim has since been abandoned. rne
Court OF Appeals, Judges Allen and Grover dis
sentlng, reversed my order as the other c,a'ms
TO discovery On The ground that the particulars
bad usen denied because OF a supposed want OF
power. The closing words Il the order were not,
1t seems, well chosen, the expression "lor want OF
power ana on tue other grounds stated" having
been taken TO reer not otwo modes Of ottreatment,
the one under reslrant FOR want oil autAnrily aud
the other having regard to lie merits and tae d.s
cretlon which should nave been exercised put TO
one and the same ground OF rejection, namely
the want 81 au hortty. Is appears tnereiore, anes
OF that disavowal OF authority; that tne doculle
resort may, in he exercise OF a WIS., discretion,
order particulars to be furnished N action Tor
sor' he eXsns cases Of tnc S deso Ba
tnat Court did not and could NOT. de-
denied should have Deea granted, out lett the
discretion 10 DC exercised oy this Court IN grant
Ing or refusing such application untranmeled and
elaborate opinion OF Judge Kapalo the Dill or mar
ration was so vague and general that something
ant 10 know what the real cha acter OF toe charge
was. When the particulars ordered IN such cases
IN aid Of the pleading were furnished that pl ac-
ing and the particulars combined became as
definite and certain as lhe Dill or COMPLAINT in
sented. such cases 10 not, therefore, touch the
question whether the complaint before US
were they cited with a view TO That question, but
Simply to show that the Court may, as occa-
sions arise, order the particulars. II tins
practice can be convent sntiy and USE
fully applied to most actions Tor tort,
to such case a. tins. The nature OF tie o6ence,
The secrecy and studied concea ment attending It's
preparation, constitute objection. good
cause OF action may exist Tor such wrong, to be
proved only by c.rcumstantal evidence, and the
to give particulars as 10 time and place, Il would,
we apprehend be so IN most instances, the cases
in which the particulars could be .sae.y gwen
furnished perform double onice-nrst, to ADVISE
ns bsa be &c @ fao bsUre ne
are ordered 1T should aptear that the appii-
can't needs the ana "a 'haI @ 'he ne qGg1 po
as III firm grasp IN tue prescribed Circle WITH
out materially irnpair!ng Ms rights litoe SUBJECT
matter be such III its nature admits OF general
reliable information, lhlng open as the day,
the particulars may De ordered Without nssi,
subject the act or offence and the circumstances
are not to be thus seen, known or resolved, the
order should be granted with great hesitation or
withheld 1t was heiefore material to consider
whether The defendant needed Jhe information
that We had no knowledge or suspicion as 10 the
times or place. at which the p.alniin expects TO
form any surrniss conceralng the probable
line OF proof which may be adopted by the plan-
ttude common to suitors pressed by what they
deem al artificial unjust claim; the field OF
combat opened to him as II has been 10 ltlgants
for generations. he will recognize the iacr, his
learned counsel Will accept the suggestion that q
in the position ne WI be, gwen tne light ne WIZ
have, when the trial The plaintih's proofs are III
and bis case closed. But SIM the inquiry Is
whether or not, whether the due course or Pro-
cedure the defendant needs tniorMaton wn!ch
can be furnished u ne did % when sne application
was first made at Specia Term, does tnat want
rest him stAS learn Ircm the arguments and IL
Illustrations oil counsel speaking 10 tie case ID court
there and on former occasions, anu rom inc aiI-
davtts aud fTom the press tbst there nave been
examinations before a committee, the plaintiff
present as q witness; that several statements
nave rom time to time beeu given TO the puzzle
in each, plaintiff seeking 60 make out MS case
ana in his zeal setting iOrth and amplifyng his
proofs. The details oi the case have thus obtained
= large publicity. In addition 10 tnat we have
before Us tue palnun's atfdayit used at the spe.
clal Term IN resisting the last motion, IN which ne
states what proof be has and what ne mas not. II
not otherwise obtained this AFFIDAVIT on file gives
10 the defendant tue desired Information. This
the counsel comedies by bls orer to accept that
arfidayit az the BIZ OF particulars II must De
grau ying to the learned counsel for The de.
client as thus ADVISED win the position
according 70 The general course, brought his ac.
Sn the roos he 70 ave az MS
The application Tor particulars would then have
nse ns n rear gre suppo s sq II qPss 3 not sP
ual personal knowledge which could with safety
be put IN the form OF particulars lie had az best
ttlta'H W HhiSh nS ..J nu'S 1Ssh
enlightened or may nave been mlsed II not MIS-
led as 10 the substantive fact ne may have been
as to the times and places to be designated under
the order. As tae DEFENDANT has thus all the in.
formation which could be extor.ed by the orders
oil she Court, SHOULD he be content, or Should
that a5 70 time and place be put
In the form OF particularsY The change
In form will OF add one jot little to the infora-
tion as gwen. The advantage gained might be
one which the defendant In the exercise OF his
own Judgment might regret, one which might
operate oppressvcly upon the palntn on the
trial A special and theoretical suggestion IN
favor OF the particulars remains 10 be noticed. II
ii salo that as the defendant Is innocent he may
be surprised on the tria, may ne confronted by
fabricated testimony as 70 acts never dreamed OF
by bn: that II statement nf the times and places