New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-11-14

which he ia to be Implicated" Gambcrt at People
want delay nor do we want this bleeding heart travel
Ing around the country pouring forth It's woes and talk
Ing over them In ION ~ sduepy Against
our client .u -, mar
t.cuiers inspead Of moving 70 make complaint
defnte and certain. The latter proceeding w9uu no'
have been an appropriate efficient remedy The COM
plant was not Indefinite nor uncertain, within the
meaning of the Code upon that subject the complaint
showed tho precise nature OF the plaintiffs claim"
Tue Code does require that the particulars Of the
plaintiffs claim shall be stated IN the pns On
exactly that which Is provided Tor by the common
law practice OF requiring m OF ParGuars hne s the
evidence by which 1t Is proposed to establish FACTS anu
as wa, said by PUPer the
evidence which be offered. that there can be no
mistake as 10 the preparation to DO made 10 resist no
Claim"
motion to make the complaint moro definite would
for the defendants purpose, and would not have even
him any Of that protection against surprise wnon no
explicit in it's averments of time aud place. the pai9 r
might nevertheless have introduced evidence OF inner
oompanied the order to mako the complaint more
definite with order precudiDg the pianuH ITO" nv
d nf y a0 Clergyman Of worldwide fame
and reputation 1t was incnmoen' ny, upon conrt but
for for re- asoe WITH his public e
meet tho charge of the complaint promptly July saa
made against him. and he was entitled to deny that
fully, without reference to dates and places, anu s
q ~.
general denial avoid any possible pretenss tina,
lie sought to evade by reference TO dates anu
IN tne most sweeping that he never, at any Time
or at any place, committed any Of the acts charged
against him. II he had moved for an anendment oi
tie complaint narrowing tho issue. 1t might have been
treated as significant evidence OF his unwiHgness 70
deny under oath the whole broad charge That no mas
now done; and he Is not now seeking TO narrow tue
ISSUE but simply to know what the issue is. and what
charges he must meet not only with his own oatn Uu,
an issue for trial his own oath concusve but TOT
the purpose Of deciding the issue when raised nc must
support his oath by further testimony ana TINS ~ Is
ossb6 for hm to do he has reasonable notice
of the specific charges which he must meet. Mo-.
don't argue this case as common lawyer tneI I
broke out Mr. Shearman with emOiion). feel strongly
Ia this matter. IL is not too much ior me 10 say Una.
fail II the law has CHOSEN to give bun up.1 ask no
better fate than to die by tho side OF the man Win
Hero the tears Mr. Sherman gushed forth; he PUT
his handkerchief to MS eyes and stopped being unpe
TO proceed. The entire court witnessed his emotion
and waited silently for 1t TO subsde AT last Mr. smear
man continued: -. Art.
ease--for a lawyer well anybody else must nave
feengs-I will get out OF 1t as soon as can IL Is sus
claim and that In this case claim is the damage and
not the specific OF Injury But We submit that TINS
DO tho conversion OF personal property the enumeration
or description of would be the bill OF OF tne
claim" thus concedng that by claim Is meant not merely
the amount of money demanded. but the allegation OF
wrong done For IN an seTn or the
property taken, but only claims the money value OF nt
property. II then he can DO compelled 10 eve p ar
ocular description of the property taken from n why
cannot plaintiff alleging IN injury OF the description
alleged in this action be compelled to state the parcu
lar instances which that mi Try was coDmittedf IL
is suggested that tho defendant can accomplish the
same result that which he now seeks by examining
the plaintiff before trial But this is not so. for wne ne
could thus compel the plaintiff to state the particulars
the alleged confessions made to him, Lie cOuid not
require any pledge further proof OF wrongful acts
would not be gwen upon the trial. nor couid tue Cou[.
upon the basis OF such examination grant any ORDER
precluding such proof Moreover by forcing tho DC
PENDANT into this course, the Court would prdctcsy
compel him adopt the plaintiff as witness, ana to
give the plaintiff opportunity OF putting his own tes-
tilnOpy before the Jury without his personal attend
ance and every lawyer knows how ineffective cross
examination when not conducted IN the actual pres
euce Of the jury. early agt. Smith, p. 25.)