The New York herald., 1874-12-02
BEECHER-TILTON.
The Apple tion for Bill OF Particulars
Before the Court or Appeals.

before the Court OF Appeals
ALBANY, N. Y, Dec. l. 1874
In the Court of Appeals this morning Will
lam NJ. Evarts, counsel ior Henry Ward Beecher,
under the call ior motions, stated that he had
motion to make In the OF Theodore Tilton, re-
spondent vs.. Henry Ward Beecher. which was an
appeal from an order OF the General Term OF the
City Court OF Brooklyn, affirming by an equally
divided bench an order denying the defendants
application for bill OF particulars. He then pro-
ceeded to state and argue his points, which are
fourteen In number-some OF them elaborately
subdivided-and lengthy appendix.
THE APPELLANT's CLAIM
FrSt-That the order or the General Term Is ap-
peaiaoie, because expressly based upon alleged
want OF power IN the Court to grant tile defend
ants motion for bill OF particulars:
SecO7ld-That at common law the Court has
power to order bill oil particulars IN any action,
without regard to its nature. subject or orm.
diminish the power which the Court had, ut CON-
mon law, to order blli OF particulars, but rather
F0u,11-Tnat bills OF particulars have been re.
peatedly ordered in actlOns or tort in the courts
OF this and Otner States.
Stxth-Altnough there Is no direct precedent re-
ported in this State OF an order lor bill OF par.
for divorce, yet there are express precedents IN
England, and in sundry States OF tins Union where
dications in the decisions OF our own courts that
1t is the policy Of the law here as elsewhere, to
give the defendant Is IN such actions the benefit OF
precision and particularly IN the charges brought
against them.
iSerenth-Thts is pre-eminently q case in which
the defendant Is entitled to particulars OF tne
charges to be brought against him, by reason OF
the danger OF surprise at the trial, or mistake or
false swearing by the witnesses
Efghth-lt cannot be objected that the matters
Of which particulars are sought are more within
the DEFENDANTS knowledge than In the paintrs.
~ me plaintiff mas fuli knowledge OF these par par
vculars, and has boastingly published to the
world his possession OF that knowledge. t2) The
very innocence OF the defendant makes the want
OF particulars q trap tor him.
Ninth--lt may be objected that the defendant
should go to trial and rely on hs right to object to
any evidence OF acts not specifically stated with
times and places In the complaint. Probably such
an objection might be held good on the trial, but
the defendant ought not to be required to take
that risk.
7enth-The defendant was right In applying for
bill of particulars, instead OF moving to make
the complaint more definite and certain Inc
latter proceeding would not have been On appro-
pirate or efficient remedy.
Eteventh-rhe application was not made out OF
season, and was not and could NOS be denied on
7,oey1h-The opinion OF the learned Judge, at
Special Term, was based on misapprenenslon, at
with the application for particulars as TO the times
at which the plaintiff intends to prove thai the
alleged ,, wrong,ni l acts took place, . svr,no
ThaTteeTth-Fhis point Is devoted TO answering
the reasoning OF Judge Reynolds opinion, at Cen
eral Term, that, as a matter OF discretion, the
order for bill OF particulars should not be MADE:
Fouteenth--The order should be reversed, and.
particulars should be directed to be furnished.
THE RESPONDENTS 'PoINTs,n.
elaborated by Mr.. Roger "A. Pryor, are foury1n
number, and are devoted to the questions:-
Fr'st-Whether, and under what authority, the
Second-Tnat. If tne Court entertain the appeal,
the order should be af1rmed.
The Court announced 1t would render;a decision
prior 20 the hearing In the case, which takes place
next TuasdAx~