New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-10-31
THE BROOKLYN SCANDAL.
THE APPLICATION FOR BILL OF PARTICULARS DE-
NIED-AN AMENDED COMPLAINT THE PROPER
THING To ASK FOR,

THE APPLICATION FOR A BILL OF PARTICULARS DE-
NIED-AN AMENDED COMPLAINT THE PROPER
THING TO ASK FOR.
Judge Nelson of the Brooklyn City Court
rendered his decision yesterday upon the application
for bill of particulars in the suit Of Theodore Tlton
against the Rev. Henry Ward Beecher. The application
is denied The Judge airms that certain places whore
the alleged ofenses were committed are named, and
states that under the code the proper proceeding in the
case would be application to make the complaint
more definite and certain. The Judge says:
Az TO the supposed confessions the complaint silent,
and properly So Under our system OF pieadngs the
This distinction must be observed 1t IS expressly en-
joined ey The Code mas oeen S San nse
is stated complaint the claim or wrong being one
Of which the law takes tne prno r6 by
which he expects or intends W support or estaDusn
his case the trial. But Is shown 6y aavits that
the plaintiff who could not have alleged In his
that such confessions had been made and might nave
been prudenty retcent on the SUBJECT mas stated In
that such proof In view Of that
the efen0ants counsel claims that the palntin should be
required state when and where those confessions
apy were made. The question is not simply whether 1t
would be well the defendant to have that additional
informaton but whether tue Court has the power to
make such requistion. l AIN satisfied that We have
not the power 1t would be dangerous innovation anu
an anomaly in Practice II every defendant who learns
that there may be attempt TO prove admissions
cOnd by motion before the Court, compel further dis
closures So far an advised such an order has never
But as said. the question is as to the power Of
TO be exercised with special reference
TO OF practice established by the Legislature.
The Code III creating new system OF procedure, has
prescribed In which VI action shall
be stated IN the complaint, and how pleading, II de.
fectye may perfected. IL gives to u defendant not
satshed with the frame or terms OF the complaint,
remedies full and adequate than gwen under
the old system. He may move TO have the complaint
made more definite and certaD and where the claim can
be itemzed, may also have bill Of particulars 10 all
this the Code adds the rg1t TO examine the adversary
on oath before trial aud even at the trial.
But the allows bill OF particulars OF the claim
II be the conversion Of personal property the
enumeration description OF IL would oe 10 the
ticuars OF the claim But action Of this peculiar
class Alike that assault and battery, is sufficiently
stated and described tue general allegation necessir
ily contained the complaint. ExtraneOus incidents
there may be. enhancing diminishing the grievance
but nothing further could said 10 the claim itself
When we are treating OF claims IN respect 10 property,
or contracts or accounts, a different rule applies.
In this case The right that the complaint be
made more definite aud certain has been waived. In
several cases the Courts have held that sucn waiver
was a that the pleading sufficient. Such
motion was a simple and appropriate remedy. aud
tins application cannot be accepted though Intended
as a substitute. But the question Is not OF much
moment TO defendant, the infOrmVtiOn TO which
he could have been entitled may yet be obtained by
examining the plaintiff before The trial think that
tine practice established by the Code should be fol-
lowed as thus and only thus can certainty and con-
sisteucy be obtained aud that an attempt by the
Court 10 evade that pr iotice aud substitute other
modes Of procedure would be unwise, II not
bensibie. Tue application s Denied but without costs