The New York herald., 1874-12-12
THE TuToN-BEECHER SCANDAL

Opinion or Judge McCue Directing the
Plaintiff 70 Furnish q Bill Of Partfcu-
lars-The Order Filed I'm the Brooklyn
City Court-The Trial Ordered Over
Until the January Term.
Shortly after noon yesterday Judge McCue rem.
dered his opinion granting the motion Of counsel
for defendant for bill OF particulars in the suit
brought by Theodore Tilton against Henry Ward
Beecher. The opinion is as lollows:-
CRY CoURr or Observation-Disclosures Tilton Henry
Ward Beecher-Motion for n bill OF paruculars.-rne
Court Of last resort has decided that this Court has
actions when the circunstances such justice
Gs & ss ses
ay ss @ ss sy % Sy qs ns Rssn
ment writing verified BY the plaintiff o. the parcu.
prove the Of any criminal between ihe
de,enaant and nd,d the plaintiff WIFE :, ,,s
the motion, and ster celebrating upon the able and
I ppope one Tor the
f sa n9 h nSs The Se sa
desired BY hm 50 rs to enable him to prepare fully 70
Ihe law imposes no impossibility. and does not re-
At the e q he s e
prove The ACT upon thc precise day named 4 sum
proxnation that the defendant fairly apprised Of
In Of the affidavit Of the plaintiff read on this
motion viii le sacent Tor nm I'm To- 70 state 70 the bil of
alleged 70 hsxs taken place on the ION and
mentioned in he atndavt suggested BY one OF the
that he during the
aaanis the eendant With the charge he meet az
% he sf n se
ne, may be regarded q as reascnabe compliance
renders this app more easy OF dsposnn nam NJ \
seemed 70 be when the moon was FIRST Special
The objection to giving statement Of particulars
ton parteuiar acts adultery oeeesssriy excludes
% 81 u msss sg hS no % on soas
named IN the confession The general OF the
y sg g n Il n
he ay 70 eones rees he defendant a aS 4 Is clear that
properly ad,nssibc evidence may he u.cd with ali
e main
Ss ns ss
sha not he precuded from eivins evidence Of OF
eS.,ssS i ne scS%eisni may s sssasilsSes,
see while sse, hand the dsiena@at "asssls. m ss.
p.Sss dPsseG s s es
'1s to The psse %e ana
alleged @ to sss Desn sSn,sa in ne month o. oeo
defendant can be offered proving directly specii-
paint, aithoash 4 may not thereby appear TO have
been cemmed On any particular @ Day or a
!ion such proof would necessarily moi only establish
!Ss dsee Of sy ss sos s s as ws
place, There g no practical dincuiy p recon. on
he cou Of last in the deeso made uGSfIsa IN hs "
4
dealt with" II the plaintiff proposes to prove any spe
cnc acts OF adultery, other than tloss alleged t
taken place IN October 1858 II should be stated. ri
the Diantin does not propose this IL ia
limit him to proof OF the specific charges which he in
tends " press.
and tail IN h,s proofs as 70 the acts aeged have tken
place in october, 1873 The defendant tbotgh confesa
Ing his guilt as to other times ana Places must necc
sar1ly be acquitted seems 10 me entirely untenabic
In the shape In which the former motion was made
there was orce In the objection Tor IL was then asscd
that the paintid should be confined his pToos 10 the
times mentioned IN the bill of part uars On The pres
ent apphe alton however not sought deprive the
plnnn OF the henet Of the general Confessions Of the
! defendant Guch rule might indeed, "sbell a de.
lendant from Just responsibility" We propose no such
restraint - "
As to the specific OF crime charged against The
defendant he should be advised them with re-
able precision As to the which mas follow tho
proof OF acs other than specific Of aiulteryl doc
mcuts and any other ry
admissible In evidence, they be ett 10 Tie de rr
mnatipn OF the jury under the laid down by the
I Court the trial
am OF the opinion the e.ore, arst that the plaintiff
should be limited as " his prooi Of specific acts o auI