The New York herald., 1874-12-11
THE GREAT SCANDAL
Argument Touching the Bill Of Particulars in
the Tilt0n- BeecheF Case.
The Plaintiff Unable to Give Any Fur
ther Times or Places.

I
ing last as soon as the decision of the Court Of
Appeals was made known, the counsel on both
sides were present yesterday before the Special
Term OF the City Court The spectators were for
the greater portion members OF the Bar. Mr.. Til
ton, the plaintin, was present with his counsel,
Samuel Morris. Mr.. Beecher was represented by
William NJ Evarts, General Is. +. Tracy and
Thomas L. Shearman. No ladies were in Court.
Judges Nelson and McCue took their seats on the
Bench shortly after ten O'Clock.
MIR. Shearman moved that the plaintiff be called
upon to show cause why he should not furnish
bill or particulars specifying the times and places
at which the alleged adulterous acts took place
between the defendant and the wife of the palm
tin. Ex-Judge Morris on behalf of plaintiff then
read the following afddavit setting forth the
PLAINTIFFS KNOWLEDGE OF THE CASE.
CRY CouRr BRooKLxS-7heoiore zlson "a Henry
Gty q Bro.Myn Kisgs coa.ty-TheodSre Tilton the
the sum total q Enowedse him Of
the a he en @sra and aees
thereof consists as follows,
X x aeaton aears Ms1 and Theodore Ton and others
made seIsR By EaabeS r f,on % Emma T. Moulton Mar.
tina b. Bradshaw Florence Thton. Theodore Iiton and
TSird-written and printed documents and let
Fo1;a-Written and printed papers. documents and
SilasGAcss declarations and conduct by said Henry
Ward Beecher and Il. X Ton respectively, tending TO
xual without locating 1t in
direct proof derived from Me acts oral decIaraons and
written papers and Of The sad Henry Ward
adm ssbie against him.
sons au made % others than not
% ANY % ens Of them Inn
ercorse between the said defendant and the wife Of
THIS tSs
% nS waee CT saS m e
Brooklyn the 10th aay q sSs and the ether:
susSs but Is pos positive that they
Ihsse psses these
sss OH hs
this % gSs and that on the h Of oco
"a as tins s that the concessions
soa %sss sS wh SAID
the said 10th q october 1858 and the spring Of
wise taan as above stated.
trial Of this action to prove BY any eyewitness any
as SSsrs to s
the CONCESSIONS Aforesaid and that the only Of
ss or Of this or Which he
g be 70 % sT Ion y saa f or ana oer @
ment o the particular times and places at winch he
or so s
defendant ana the wife OF the painuh" than Is above
And this deponent respectfully says any order for
shs & from "s
BY Of % the
Complaint, although sucn evidence may not indicate
this thf depensnt a Of material testimony he
respeeay rna u prays and thus Court should
Glant inserted aA therein en to the Following
5 s on Ss this
q %ne @aS &c
under the general rules q as THIS order
aaS ay pa Ssen sdasry
s
on any ds PpoS ps5c-
SWORN to before me- this 10th day December 1874
GEORGE W. RoDERicK, Notary Public
Mr. Shearman then al ose and said he mad pre-.
/ pared an order. which he hoped to be permitted
to introduce, so that t6e times and places should
THE ORDER PROPOSED BY THE DEFENCE
At special Term OF the City Court OF brookiyn. held
the q
H ws,s Tssang
Ssss%'s5 si.assn s ssS1eS lea
ns gas' ss' ~. = AS
e oraer the
,9a D s and
OF counsel Tor ana ssmIei - ~ Mors o. %
ordered that the plaintiff furnish to the defendants
attorneys forthwith and at three clear days
the Of eed s q e s as ns
setting forth the particular times and places at At
rpssp OK %
sS the Of i the aS ho ns
eVdsnce at the triai Of this acton tending
sss sns
s set II the Ss @
plaintiff IRON giving evidence Of any alleged coney-
sGo %@onsia Sn PIN alleged
referred ref err, to- A' '''''s ' -
Mr.. Morris said what they proposed to DO when
they went to trial was to produce all legitimate
fendant guilty OF adultery but the time Is not pro-
duced. They did not want the Jury 10 say tnat
proposed arrangement by counsel on the other
side would be TO prevent the plaintin from coming
into court and going before the jury with IN
MIR. Evarts replied, saying The acts OF adul-
tery-that Is, the time and place OF their comnis-
sion-snould be shown with reasonable certainty.
| II might De, say, on journey at sea, as In the
queen case, during voyage on the Mediter-
SION that the offence was committed in general
without specifying time or place. Tney had never
az this Case but wanted to nave set
the facts upon which the legal evidence Is TO bear
Mr.. Morris said tnat under TINS restriction the
iury are required to find that the act was COM
mtted on particular day. The jury may be unan-
imons in the opinion tnat the defendant IS guilty
sney cannot find that the act was committed on
| particular day, and SO render verdict All ne
asked was to have the issue met lalriy. where
| legitimate evidence can be taken.
Mr.. Evarts replied that there Is no such thing as
a unanimous opinion OF jury tnat adultery has
| been committed. without any opinion Oh the jury
| that It has ever been committed at particular
time or place. There Is no sucn thing as concln-
sion Of adultery % havn1 acsnrrea a. n 40 e ii
it occurred, II occurred al some time or place.
This is within reasonable limits.
Judge McCue said that plaintiff would have to
show the commission OF actS oi adultery within O
reasonable margin OF TIME anu circumstances,
Mr.. Morris said when they went TO trial they did
not want to have the jury toid:--"You must md,
IN order to give veraict ior pialn!iIl. tnat the
date, or about the particular day. The only Is.
sue is whether defendant has committed adultery
or whether he has not during the period alleged
in the complaint.
Mr.. Shearman replied presenting a series Of
precedents showing that from time immemorial
hIlla q naruculars had neen granted. A man may