The New York herald., 1874-11-20

dict. - FIVE should make the order which
10 now asked Tor the defendant might in tee
proof witch does not point TO some speclnc time.
and In the next demand a verdict of acuuittal,
him, because ne had not been shown 10 have com.
mitted the offence at the particular times TO which
sss mas ee 1g 0s the ae
have had perfectly lair trial OF the issues In the
ordinary way and am, therefore. in favor OF af
OPINION or JUDGE x'cUs.
ons IN the appeal Of
Judge keilson, Judge McCue says:-We thlnk it
proper 70 notice two objections on asea 20 Ide ae
these objections win simplify our labor. FIRST,
that the defendant desired bill Of particulars Of
It is claimed could not be introduced against the
dsendsnt; and second that the clam a,e OF sne
and assistance OF his wife. and that II the defend
ant had accomplished this without seduction
sse polns responaents 01s printed poiars
An examination Of the order TO show cause
disposes oi the frst objection. The oil oi partic,
ulars desired does not call lot the confession OF
the vile, only Tor those made by the deponent
himself. The second objection is not well taken.
ance OF the wife are elements of Damage, tits true ;
but the plaintiffs rignt OF damage rests alone
plaintiff tails TO prove the Iact. nolwtnsi anding
that he may have lost her affections, &c, ne must
a m ns IL aes0n on soe
TO prove that the defendant debaucned the plain
h VIE s sn mas ,ns sanang ste n
5i Of paTicolsTs "of the divers rt,on3s other
day named III The complaint. when tne
crtmipal conversation IS claimed TO have taken
a Tue a suy ass
McCue then reviews the ruling OF the Chief Judge
as 70 "ne want oI power 70 grant the motion ior
thinks this position an erroneous one" The com.
pann Us eading s gooa and 9ows the G es
tinolly alleged that the defendant dsoauched the
RS1sit the "s aa Or aid i not %Sss
tween the 10th day Of october, 1895, and the Time
ssmsainea q and shs pain@ n \ sn,isss " e =:
ianllsn the com mission OF single act of criminal
conversation, his cause OF action IS thus iuly es.
tansned Ine Court therefore can G give MN no
the charge against MN IS apparent on the Iace OF
the Complaint, and the time immaterlal except TO
the defe endant, to enable him TO prepare Tor trial.
1t does not oIlow that because the plaintiffs COM
PEELED 70 designate with some reasonable partcn.
necessarily obliged to disclose the evidence BY
which his cause OF action Is to be sustained. and
os " and o ~
hopes TO establish the fact; but the names OF
the witnesses who saw the guilty act committed,
or the crcumstannal evidence oy which the
plaintiff, IN the absence OF direct proof, Will en-.
deav0ur to establish the defendants guilt, are not
disclosed. The Judge contends that to give the
dates could not afford defendant any opportunity
to tamper with or elolgn an unwilling witness,
or enable him to manufacture testimony TO meet
facts and circumstances known only to plaintif1.
He does not concur with Judge Nelson, that the
defendant hao ample remedy under section l60.
The plalntin "miQht be examined before the trial,
but It s difficult to imagine any line OF examination
which would be permissible, wnicn would
give deiendent any Information as to tee
days ana umes' when the alleged criminal
acts occurred. Judge McCue further says:-"We
have no ri2ht To lresume the defendant guilty.
The burden OF proof rests upon the plaintiff =
1t Is oegging the whole question to say that the
defendant II guilty, knows Of course all the facts
which can possibly be introduced against him.
attempt 10 manufacture false testimony, but GER.
tainly the opportunity to 40 so is as Tree to the
plaintiff as 10 the defendant. Hence II Is no In
Justice to ask the plaintiff to designate the times
when the acts OF which he complains were com.
mitted. That the Court has the power
to grant the order for Dill OF particulars, the
Judge argues at length, citing several authorities
In support OF hts opinion, and decides, in conclu
sion, "that the order appealed from should be re-
versed, without COSTS however"
WILL THE CASE De TRIED IN DECEMBER
1t Is more than probable that the counsel for
Mr.. Beecher will appeal from the decision OF
ticulars, woich viii have the fleet II 10 believed,
OF putting OF the trial. which has been entered on
the City Court calendar TOR December 8, 10 an IT,
definite periOd.