New-York tribune., 1874-12-02


ticulars sought within the defendants
knowledge than in the plaintiffs This objection, II 1t
had validity might have been raised and enforced
in the various actions for divorce aud in the nature Of
Grim. which have already cited, and IN which
particulars we're invariably ordered. Uuquestionaoy
mat objection was daly considered and over,
already referred TO, viz, the danger or manu-
IactuIed evidence IN s1ch controversies. IN
Wood ast Wood Paige, I'D. tbs olJeel.oa was sSs
pamtln hal no night TO MAKE such charge II ne was
entirely ignerant VI particulars In the present case
the plaintiff has full knowledge OF these parcuars and
has boastngy published TO the world his possession Of
.hat knowledge He does moi pretend TO nave forgotten
tnat ne wihhods them foe tine present WHAT could be
his motive FOR hus withholding them His preten-e OF
about dragging his wife through the mire
and mud OF tbIs wicked charge. He has had
no drcacy about exposing 10 tic pnOlc he WOUNDS o
ms bleeding heart ant the anguish OF the home which
he himself has deliberately shattered WDy hen Is no
suhdchy Struck With sense Ol ueIcacy .ueu ue coe
TO a mere question Of dates and places Charges OF
adultery OF debauchery Of criminal intercourse repeated
and prolonged he has not the slightest hesl-
tauon in throwing at his wife. He Is not even
restrained bv bis sense OF dehcacy from raising
a question os TO the ieglunacy OF SnIin .isi
when he mas always as his own ana sui
ackuo lodges Nor does his sense or dccacy require
hlm to say Ia his punisned statement wnat cnneu5lOn
he reached to the legitimacy OF this child But When
eoinrs 10 tue simple uutY 0I peenS ns tt ''uGs @ b
places. his long suppressed deAcacy feVOts. ana ue
"cannOt bring hmsef" TO do IT, Is II not obvlous lha
his real motive Is thus TO advertise for evidence, and
to prepare himself to match the testimony of pernred
Witnesses with his own declarations as 10 pretended
very innocence or the defendant makes the want o.
particulars trap for h. III he we're guilty he would
know the times aud places bat, bong i1nocen i Is
impossible for nm 10 know them guess what dates
De assigned. As was well said b. Senator Spencer
pare for their defeDse It would vain that tney
sAauld ransack their memories; for an innocent man
would be tae least likely 10 suspect the transaction Tor
wlich ne ls to be Implicated" The defendant ought
not 10 be subjected To the rlsk of Taking OGeclon 10
nOnspecifc evidence on the trial
JUSTICE OF TIE MOTION FOR BILL OF PAITICU-
The defendant was right u applying for bill OF par
tculars Instead Of moving make The complaint more
definite aud certain Tie latter proceeding would not
have been an appropriate efficient remedy. The COM
plant was not indefinite Dor uncertain, within the
meaning the Code upon that subject The complaint
showed "the precise nature OF the plaintiffs claim"
The Code does require that the particulars OF the
only its precise nature. what the defend mt needs
to know is exactly that wlch Is PROVIDED Tor oy
the common law practice OF requiring bill or
particulars The defendant needs 20 kAOw not the ult
mat frfs bur the evidence y gL.cA Il IS pfopOsed 10
establish facts and, said ~ Clie.J Istce Saw
age. "the proper function OF Oil OF particulars is TO
apprise the parry OF The evidence wcn Is 10 be offered
so ihat thero can DC mistake 60 the preparation
~ yea1in- bnt az orderly urpDtrfion for tie trial
The pleading well enough for proper purposes.
from ~ fbc ont at Tie lime Of serving hIS compaimf
But he has declared himself ready tor trial and Is
therefore fully prepared 10 give parucgar ars.
Accordingly, IL has been held in ELgsh eases pre-
cisey IKE thls where tue complaint alleged one act or
adultery with specific circumsanccs aud several others
without the partc Iarty tnat I'M OF part ruars
was moi merely the proper Uut the only reDcdt !;
aud in that case motion 10 require the pleading 10 be
made more definite and certain by stating tbs dates OF
tue subsequent acts Oeuied upon TINS express
grouud. And this Is an important decision, because tue
practice in the English cOdrts Is now ALMOST precisely
similar 10 our own.
a notion to maze the complaint more definite wouli
only have been uap,rOIl e, 5at tery GeEectul
for the defeudans pup &c. AM would not have given
nim any of protection against surprise which he
has night 10 cidim l. the eop lht Adl becn ever 50
explicit IN its aYermeuts or tiine aud place, the
plalnUf might. nevertheless, have Introduced
Court could not have accompanied the order 70
make the complaint more dchnlte with an order
preclddng tie piautH rom giving testimony or acts
occurring other dates such an order toe Court has
power make wien bill Of particulars Is furnished
but tn Is 10 precedent hnd 10 warrant lOr Ike or
der upon mere motion Tor a correction OF the com
plant II Is true tIat the defendant NAV raise the
question oil surprise a. te tIld phl even II Ills appiica'
tiOn Tor pOstpOncmeu; Is granted upon that ground.
lie would he sutJcct to the disadvantage OF having TO
try his cause plecened "HdJ MS cuu1Sel desire Tor
hun is to know shortly before Ae commencement OF the
having the trial. TO 20 through with n TO the end
Tne defendant acierCyman OF widespread fame and
re uutatlOn. II incumbent upon l!D not for
reasons OF practice IA tuls Court. bur Or
nee ed with hl4 public name and ftln' ~ meet the
charge OF tine complaint promptly, fully, md sQuarelv
general charge OF criminal intercourse was made
without reference 10 dates or places; and this
he did gong even beyond the ordinary Ian
qJage Of q general denial so a5 to avoid any
pOs e Ireense that he soug1t TO eyade Dy reference
to dates ana aNSeIUet III Ou5 uos, sWep!u- tusla-
tlat lie never any time or at any piIce committed
auV u
,sue it might nave been treated as sgni ant evidence
of his unWIlllngnfss 10 deny under Oath the whole
broad charge. That he has done; and he
is not seeking to narrow the issue, but simply
10 know what the issue Is, and what cdE,cs he
meet not only with his own oatn, but with con-
rmatoTy evidence. Fox tue purpose OF raising issue
for trla his own oath conclusive; bat lOr puI
nose OF deciding the issue when raised he must support
his own OATH Dy further testimony ana TINS II Is I'M
possible for HIM to do unless he has reasonable notice
~ ths sDec fe charges winch he must meet The app-
cation was made out or season, and not denied
on tnat ground. The opinion OF Judge Nelson was
based on iDlsdppreLehslou' LIS power 70 OfIer OuI
of particulars not derived from statute, but
The counsel SAID taat the opinion OF Judge Reynolds
at General Term did dispute the power OF the Court
to require paracuars to De gwen, but held that
matter OF dlSGrctIOh suCn an Ole snOul not DC naue
The learned Judge abored under an entire misappre
hehsoh ol tne en0' ,, Id OIi ~ Us no eVi-
gwen, the plaintiff would be rgidly ued down
withstandng he should shs mistake which
did not misead the deleudIut and the correction Of
which cOud not operate a5 surprise IAs was not the
HE Court would allow ne Dhl OF particulars to
amenGod IN any way before the trial. aud would dis
regard any variance at the Trial. II the deieudant was
It Is SAID ho6ever, concluded the counsel, that the
strDgeut which actions for divorce suOuid
applied to tnls action. Why not IL not tue
plaintiff in divorce suit lust as ignorant OF precise
not the faces Oe proved precisely the same Have
not the Courts applied even more stringent rules OF
they prescribe III OF dlvOrcei Is there
not precisely the same danger OF surprise iu
this action that there Is IN divorce : And,
In view of the fact that the alleged param0ur ap
pear "a witness for nls own vlndicatOn IN divorce
OF Grim con- runOus as IL may DC 10 nsr fepuIdtiOn
should require at least as much precision
an op1crta1ity TO defend herself WnaT is tnere in this
species OF as II has been, by all mor
remedy than the dsease-that should entile "
to such IaVor from the Court.
ARGUMENT OF GEN. PRYOR.