Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1874-12-11
TILToN-BEECHER.
Arxumeut TO show Caase whJ BIiI Of
Particulars should not be Granted
-TSltOniS AIadaEfs.

NEW YORK, December l0.-The ar
guynent In the Crder to show cause why
bill Of particulars should not be granted
in the Tilton-Beecher suit came up to-
day before Judge M'Cue In the general
term court room at Brooklyn. Theo-
dore Tilton was present, sherman
opened the argument ~ reading an or
der to show cause, etc. EX-J udge motifs
then read the affidavit made by Theo.
Tilton. 1t rerites that the sum total OF
knowledge now possessed bT him Oh
the conduct complained OF between
Henry Ward Beeeher and Elizabeth X
Tilton and of the times and places
thereof, consists In confessions made oy
Beecher 10 Francis d. Moultont Emma
r. Mouiton, Theodore Tilton and others.
Confessions made by Elizabeth Tllton
to Emma 3 MoultOn, Martha j. Brau-
shaw, Florence TiltOn, Theodore Triton
and others, written and printed papers,
documents and letters; Beecher, filton,
and other persons; the acts, deelara-s
tions, and conduct by Heeeher and Mrs.
Tilton leading to the proof without lo-
eating acts to any times or places, ana
various circumstances not amounting
to direct proof derived from aess
or oral declarations and written
papers and documents OF Beeeher, ana
OF other persons. Tilton also says IN his
affidavit that the confessions made to
him named but two specific occasions,
and but two places, when and where
criminal conduct was had, namely, one
at the house OF defendant in Brooklyn
on the tenth OF October, 1858, but the
deponent is not absolutely certain that
the above are the precise dates given BY
said confessions, bat is positive they
were about and very near to these two
DAYS. N0rsls the defsndent positive
that the places assigned to these dates
were az stated, it being possible that
the intercourse stated above as occur
ring on the tenth of October, 1865, may
have been at the house Of this deponent,
and that on the seventeenth Of October,
at the house of defendant; and deponent
further says that the confessions made
to him admitted various acts OF adulte-
nv by defendant and the wife OF plain
tiff between the tenth Of October, 1865,
and the spring of 1870, but did not par
ticularize any time or place otherwise
than IS stated; that the defendant does
not expect to be sble, on trial,
to prove by any eye-vitnesses any such
Intercourse, or prove any dennlte Tune
or place, when or where, such inter-
course occurred, except by confessions,
and that they are the only proof OF adul-
terry charged within the control or
knowledge Of deponent, and which he
expects to be able to Offer on trial.
Pilton concludes his affidavit by asking
the court, IN case the ball Of particulars
il granted, that this order be not 90 con-
strued or applied as to prohibit the
plaintiff from introducing evidence OF
con fessions, acts, declarations, writings
and documents which may be adnnissa-
BILE under the general rule OF evidence,
as If this order mad not been made aud
which do not refer to any particular act
or time OF adultery, but proving by such
evidence adulterous intercourse, charged
in the complaint, although il may not
thereby appear to have been committed
on any particulsr day, or at any psrdeu'
lar place. AFTER the argument in favor
of the bill OF particulars by Messrs.
sherman and Evarts, counsel for
Beecher, and by Ex-Judge Norris
against it, the judge took the papers and
reserved his decision.