The New York herald., 1874-11-14
TILTON VS.. BEECHER.


the PlaintiR to File q Bill OF Particu.
lars-Mr. shcarman n Sheds Tears-Sha1l
MIR. Beecher BE Allowed To Prepare an
Alibis
The argument upon appeal from the ecision Of
Judge Nelson In the suit OF Theodore Tilton
against Henry Ward Beecher, denying ths motion
OF counsel for the defendant for bill Of particu.
lars, was heard before the General Term OF the
Brooklyn City Court yesterday afternoon. There
was very large attendance Of Brooklyn and New
York lawyers, among whom were District Attor-
ney elect Britton and the present District Attor-
ney, John Winslow. Messla Beach and Norris
appeared for the plaintiff and Messrs. Tracy,
Shearman and Hill for the defendant. AZ half.
past two the case was called, when Judge Rey-
nolds said II would be necessary to decide whether
the case would be tried next, as extraordinary
efforts would then have to be made to obtain .
jury. Mr.. Beach replied that they would be ready
on behalf OF Mr.. Tlton, but they would not press
the case against the wishes OF the Court.
Judge Reynolds suggested naming some day IN
December Tor the trial, whcrcupon Mr. Beach re-
marked that some regard should be paid to the
order in which these cases are to be tried. There
are one or more indictments growing ont OF tho
case, and he supposed the civil cases should be
tried FIRST
Mr.. Shearman did not believe in any farce before
the Court, and his client was ready; but r. Nor
rs agreed that this case should not be tried before
December After como argument as to the pro-
priety OF fixing some day in December for the
trial, 1t was finally decided that It should not be
tried on Wednesday next, but II would remain on
the calendar and would be disposed OF on tnat day.
Mr.. Shearman then opened an argument for APP
peal rom the decision Of Judge Nelson and IN
support or the rights OF Mr.. Beecher to u bill OF
particulars. This case was more important to him
tban his life, and more important to Brooklyn
several points OF common law in support OF h is
position that the Court has power to order bill
nature, subject or or form . This p power I Is inde
pendent OF statute, and is incident 10 the general
quired upon an Indictment for libel. The code or
which tho court had at common law to
order bill Of particulars, but rather en-.
larges that power. The Court may In al casea,
to be furnished by either party He tnen read 9
bills had been ordered. In prosecution for en-
bezziement, Rex vs. Hodgson. Car 10. p. 44o and
M Is no.
reported in this State OF an order bn, OF par
sculars In an action Tor criminal conversations, or
for divorce, yet there are express precedcntS IN
England and in other states OF this Union where
the common law prevails; and there are plain in
dicattons In the decisions OF our own courts that
give the defendants in such actions the beneft OF
rSe had NO to SeT
MI. Beecher guilty Of the acts charged against
Judges sSe on the coaa e q
Court had right to assume the respondent lnno-
cent and the plaintiff misled man. The plaintiff
acts act do down % to line point, and he should not be
allowed to withhold those facts. He was glad u
say say teas actions w fN9 o0n Ss Mere very rare
enough; hence the precedents In this State on the
N n ri n yyi tpl vor
Sns back n, Of man man hcr alleged psramSur whllc
wife over MI Beecher while her mouth Is closed,
she not being party to the action. lie held that
them known No dclicacy restrained Tllton rom
putting his wife in The gutter and trampling on
illcgitmate. ana o great many other outrageous
things, though he Hhe COUNSEL believed her yir-
tuOus and pure, ana respected her as much as any
lady or his acquaintance. Mr.. Tton was now
trying to spring
and asks the Court protect pro- him. rne counsel
appealed to the Court TO grant an order for bill
OF particulars that there should be an END q this
granted to the most misera BILE man IN the land
should not be refused one VINO had done so much
the matter stands we don't know now but what
tins man Of war; val who has been hawking his bic bleed,
.sas ss: aaa.srv may shsss eve
and and absurd to to make such an oyerwheImine
charge without furnishing the timcs and places &C
which the alleged offences we're commtttedY Mr..
Beecher had spent his whole lifc for his fellow man
aud now he asks for a lew days time to think where
he was on certain days when Mr. Ihton says ne
was some hero else. He spoke OF MI. Beecher
not as a common lawyer speaks OF MS chent, Out
IS man win whom be nSpea 70 yoa and fs ST % al M
side OF him near whom he had been proud to
live.
and as soon us he could control Ills rising emo
tions asked pardon OF the Court Tor the unusual
exhibition OF feeling and continued his remarks
The point they want to establish IL to know yUet
what they want TO meet; for, as Mr.. Evarts said
10 him. when they came TO try the case they wond
try 1t, and not iool with It, Had the application
been granted it would not have delayed the trial
one day. II the name Of the dsiendant Is TO be
clouded It will cloud the name OF the city itself,
and they asked that the case be iully examined
and justice done MIR. Beecher.
THE ARGUMENT FOR THE PLAINTIFF.
Ex-Judge Morris, on behalf OF Theodore Tlton.
spoke for upward OF half an hour In opposition 70
the motion for bill Of particulars. The object or
the motion was to obtain possession OF the evil
dence OF the plaintiff In advance of the tria. The
claim Is for the loss OF the vile OF plaintiff, the
home and her alienation from t. II they are en-
titled to one branch OF the evidence then they are
entitled to 1t ali. lie Claimed that the divorce
case ctted had no analogy to this case. Inc com.
planant gives the specific places where where : y
made under section l5S OF the Code, the OASIS o.
which application is tue suppositl0n tnat tho
plaintin intends to produce false auo man"iaV-
turSd evidence on the trsl; Mo,,,s arguing against
the motion. He dwelt upon tue s ~ tsc;,n~
bcIallen the household Of Mr.. Titon ~ iecnng
terms: spoke OF the defendant sarcastcaiiy a.
Pries Beecner emu M narcuIars as les de-
| iendant knew what he had said In ms concsstonss
| and c0uld not require any further information.
The Court took tine PAPERS and reserved US ds.