New-York tribune., 1874-11-20

that the defendant debauched the plaintis wife. but
the plaintiffs claim that the defendant NOT only com
init on s aCs oSs oSe DAYS and Il viii
not be contended that the word claim can nave any
then wo are OF opinion that the Court has power to
order the plaintiff to furnish such further hs
able to lind an adJudicated case reports where
such particulars have ordered IN civil action, but
ss on % and ann in con for divorce before the
Code (See Lambert vs. the People, Cow 6seJ senasor
ring to the rule IN criminal that the Indictment
must not only contain Description OF the crime bnt aiso
identify the accusation and to the rule In iDdic,
mens for barratry requiring the prosecution to urnn
instances, says hs simple and plain rule is agree
able to and common justice that neeas
not any authority to support It," In the case OF WOou
ert Wood an action for divorce, Paige, 49, the Chan
ceor held "that the only safe and prudent course is TO
ELIMINATION. sHr to be- stated in the pleading and in the
such that the adverse party msy se
party have right to make such charge against @ snS
M testimony before the trial to support the allegation"
In the case OF Early ag Smith 10 ln o. H. 81 wniSa %
cor or an order eompeng the defendant furnish
the names descriptions and OF rne s
we as Se time when aud the places where they
spoken, the application seemed nove Que; no pasee
full examination granted the order in modified form
Though for the first time applied for I was claimed
enable the defendant to tamper with the plautis wit
pesses which the Court replied: This Is an oolec
ton to which we should yield 1t may be raised 20
almost every application for bill Qf particulars The
object OF application Ia to enable the defendant 10
down to trial knowing the case which he Is to meet
and to prevent him from being taken by surprise.
The Court directed the plaintiff TO furnish statement
of the occasions which the words were spoken put
not Of the names. descriptions, and addresses OF tne
persons present Tie power OF the Court under section
1853 is without limitation The Court may In All cases
order bill of particulars Of the claim OF either party 10
be furnished The language is broad enough 10 cover
this case and the the rule which 1as OBTAINED
our State in criminal actions and actons Tor dlVorGe
applies with equal force action for Grim. con. mo
are justified In saying that applies with greater Iorce
in the bar for the effect of verdict against the
defendant is practically 10 stamp as an adoltefer
person not party action. and therefore unable 70
make any defense IN court We think the enect OF TINS
section is to incorporate into our practice the most
liberal rules which have prevailed In other countries
and States which recognize with the common law In
so far as such rules bring about the more perfect
administration OF Justice To recapi'ulate the conclu
| slons TO which we nave come .-
Firs The precise nature OF the charge being appar
In the complaint, the defendant coud not OBTAIN tue
particulars sought under the provision OF Section l6e
| Second: The Court below had power under section
1888 TO order the particulars asked for by the defendant
to the exent.of compelling the paintln TO designate
possible particularly the times ana occasions
when the guilty acts committed, whether the
plaintiff was possessed Of the Information from the con-
fessions OF the defendant or otherwise. -
That the discretion TO the Court 10 oruer
such bill OF particulars is legal discretion, TO be exer
according to tine weestaDlisned rules ana prac
tico OF the Court; and lastly
That the order appealed from snOuld DC reVerseu'
without costs however. A MCCUR, Juuse.