New-York tribune., 1874-11-20
JUDGE REYNoLDS's OPINION,

Henry Ward Beecher.The defendant upon this appeal
asks that the plaintiff be compelled to specify the par
tcuar "times" at which he expects in
tends to prove any acts Of adultery, and
that the plaintiff be precluded from giving
evidence upon the trial Of any acts not so specified
The order show asked for like specification OF
places and Of the particular times and places at
which alleged confessions mado. Upon tho arSu-
before us, however. 1t was not claimed that the
places were sufficiently specified and that part Of
the order relating to confessions was expressly waived
even il 1t had not been waived 1t would obviously
be beyond the province of the Court to make any such
reQuison The question before US In this appeal then 49,
ought the plaintiff upon the trial to be confined to those
particular acts the date OF which he may be able to
fix in advances for it would be idle to compel him to
name the precise time Of alleged acts except for the
purpose Of excluding all others from his claim That Is
the very object OF the motion. The complaint alleges
the wrongful acts to have been committed on or about
day October, aud In divers other days
and times after that day and before tho
of the action specifying the place. two houses In the
CITY OF Brooklyn admitted that this sufficiently
definite and certain for the purposes of the pleading II
not the remedy by motion, and to be made before
the OF the understand this application
to be based upon the ground that the Court
has to tho @ % Of as as
well by Section 1853 OF the Code, without dis
wneher the Court possesses the power to restrict the
plaintiff by bill VI particulars IN such an action as
this IprOpoe to rest my conclusion mainly upon the
ground that proper for the exercise of
such power. The defendant is entitled matter of
for it is applicable to the nature Of the case but the bill
of particulars OF the claim which the Court may order
sound discretion. Upon examining the authorities cited
BY the Sn 1t T be bs ioapd 1ea the
particular circumstances of the case, and the sup
% % ns S ss %
os @se, 1 the MSsrs sa the Dsss
damages against the alleged paramour. In these
to be given 1t is worth while to observe the
in which the of action is stated In the petition
fake for Instance the cases cited upon the very able
brief defen niants counsel In Hunt agt. Hunt, Swa
of frecriminatioD with having committed adultery with
three persons named without stating time or place. In
Codngton and Anderson, Swa. and Tris, the charge
was that the respondent had committed adultery on
divers occasions since april 1852 with divers persons
legged frequent acts Of guilt between 1859 aud 1862 with
person named At a ssG saGans during aSs sar
Further particulars were ordered IL appearing
that the on n which the and charge was s
tiers of the respondent In another ga case, Wscom
tion was for adultery about the year 1885, at Ju
bupoor with some man other than the petitioner Par
tieaars were ana ane order 10 ndyS
Edward Clark at Jubupoor In February or March, 1859
25. the libel or complaint charged that the defendant
had committed various acts OF adultery at different
wears. II would DO difficult to imagine charge much
more general and indefinite than this Under system
which toeretes pleading in action for divorce
AS nsanced by the foregoing references the complaint
must OF course be supplemented by statement OF par
for divorce has always been compelled by the pleading
specify the circumstances Of the ofense alleged as to
the system OF orders adopted elsewhere. We are
not referred to divorce case in this State.
or H'n made. think, too. the learned counsel was
mistaken in supposipg that the settling of issues
sought to be attained by an order TIE issues were
framed upon the pleadings; these were required TO
aege the ofense with reasonable certainty Of time and
place. aud If the charge too vague the defect
not remeded by supplying issue containing the par
Good. 2, john Gu IA Wood vs. Wood, q Paige. los.
The practice OF ordering particulars In such
lars may be ordered in certain and sometimes In
action II lost We have been referred to two cases dc.
1, cow. 81, l,oOl, an action OF trover for the
conversion Of quantity OF tin timber; ., a bill OF
cred an account specifying 80 many sticks OF differ
ent kinds. without giving dates or mentioning any
time within which the several items arose The Court
say OF the items should be given with as much
particularity as possible IL the day cannot Ds stated
claim susceptible OF being resolved into particulars
or itenlzed with approximate dates as much 50 as an
aud this has been sufficiently discussed by Chief
was an action for DOVER ag Conan
4 Cow. 396-"Tbe count was in the then usual gem
conr saw the proper course was tue same as in eject
ment, where the declaration was equally general
ticuar land the plaintiff was proceeding. "Ths pro-
ceeding to obtain Di OF particulars seems applicable
10 ali actions which the plaintiff declares generally,
without specifying particularly his cause vi action"
Surely an order requiring the plaintiff TO specify
what land he Is claiming in suit does not 90 far
for requiring party 10 state the exlc. date
OF secret, wrongful act alleged TO have b,eu com
mtted against The OF Early agt Smith, cited
from the Appendix to IL Irish Com Law r. much
matter before u.s. no action was for SANDER
md the set the words spoken, without
sting tine place Tao Court made Order which
was modified on appeal The prevailing opinion says
We do not compel the plaintiff 10 stats tho specific
tunes at which no charges the words 10 have been
spoken or bind him by them, or the names OF the par
ties 10 whom the words spoken, bat the occasion
on which tue words were sp0kea. One OF tho Judges
saws he mad Concluded 10 60 SO far not without dim
GUILTY and another dIssents; but the decision
plainly falls short Of the point attempted 70 DO
reached la this case Tue Court refused bind the
plaintiff to specific times. There Is vast difference.