The New York herald., 1874-11-20
TILT0N VS.. BEECHER.

Particulars Ocn1ed-Juuges Reynolds
and Mccue Render Diverse Opinions.
Yesterday, In the Brooklyn City Court, General
Term, Judges Reynolds and McCue rendered de.
csions upon the argument Of appeal OF counsel In
the case Of Titon against Beecher, In the matter
OF the order OF Chief Justice Nelson, denying the
right of defendant to bill OF particulars specify.
ing the times and places at which the alleged acts
OF adultery were committed between the defendant
and the wife OF the plaintiff. The former.named
Judge atnrms the order OF the lower Court. while
Judge McCue dssents from the opinion or bis asso.
cate.
DECISION or JUDGE REYNOLDS.
Judge Reynolds says the question before the
Court 49, "Ought the plaintiff upon the trial to be
confined to those particular acts, the exact date
OF which he may be able TO nx In advance?" for 1t
would be idle to compel him to name the precise
time OF any alleged acts except for the purpose
OF excluding all others from his claim. That Is
the very object OF the motion. The complaint
alleges unlawful acts to have been committed on
or about the 10th day OF October 1s6s specifying
as the place two houses In the city OF Brooklyn.
1t is admitted that this s sufficiently definite and
certain for the purposes OF the pleading. II not,
the remedy was by motion, and to pe made before
the service OF the answer. He understood the
application to be based upon the ground that the
Court has power to order bill OF particulars,
incident TO the general administration OF justice,
as we'll as by section 15S or the Code. Judge
Reynolds ays:-"The defendant is entitled, as q
matter OF right, to copy OF the plaintiffs account
when a demand Tor 1t Is applicable to the
nature OF the case but the bill OF particulars OF
the ciaim which the Court may order, IN all cases
is TO be required only IN the exercise OF sound
discretion" Upon examining the authorities cited
by defenoants counsel, IL Will be found that the
Court in each instance has eyidently nad reler-
ence 20 the particular circumstances OF the case
and the supposed ability o. the party to give the
Information asked for The decisions which are
relied upon as having the most direct bearing
upon the application are those cited from the
English Divorce Court, where the petition Tor d.
/ vorce is joined with an action Tor damages
against the alleged paramount. In these cases IL
! seems TO be common to order particulars to be
given. The Judge then reviews the manner in
under tne,r the practice ana contends tnat they are
not analogous. 1--WE are not,' ne says, referred
to divorce case IN this State where an order for
the counsel was mistaken in supposng That the
setting OF issues In divorce SUIT ever served the
purpose which Is sought to be attained by an
order. The issues were founded upon the plead
ings. Thee were required TO anege the offence
Il the charge was too vague the defect was not
remedied BY supplying an issue containing the
: = The practlce OF ordering particulars in
such cases seems never TO have obtained mere. OF
tam cases, and sometimes in actions ol tort.n rhe
precedent5 cited by the counsel Tor defendant
HuaDrey opsr ys % COW fSM EsTy ~ SMITH
! appendix to II irish com. Law R.-do not form
basis Tor similar procedure on the part or this
Court. There Is vast difference between the
| nature OF this case and these cited. "Our atten-
ton has not been directed to any case In the
State,n says Judge Reg nolds, 'and am not aware
OF any holding In an acLon for damages for
wrong committed where the time OF The
tute the cause OF action, that the particular time
must be stated aud proved according TO the aie-
/ gaIon. IL is SAID, on, II is 4 great hard
Ship 10 the defendant 20 go to triai without know.
ing the precise times and places at which ne Is
/ alleged 10 nave committed the onences charged
! 4
to-day; upavoidably 30. with ali the uncertainties
OF human testimony no man can Oresee the
chances and accidents OF a trlai and as 10 imma-
ter!ai circumstances great latitude sn0ud be al
tracts from published statement of the plaintin
in wnlch he SPEAKS OF concessions made 70 him by
his wife and by the deiencant. II is not present
apparent how her concessions can be made use Of
as evidence the trlal. AS to those OF the
defendant, IL does not appear tbat the piAintin's
statement. as quoted, that such confession .ur-
I nlshed MN with the information as 70 the dates
wnicn would enab e nm 10 comply with the oruer
sought for nor IS y quite clear That pialntin In
such an action ought 20 be compelled 10 rest his
case upon the accuracy or renaDIty OF data so OBJ
tanned, even II particulars were gwen him. Now,
suppose the plaintln comes into Court and upon
the trial swears 70 coneSio or guilt as made 10
hun Oy defendant, broad enough 10 sustain the
complaint II credited by the jury: suppose he
succeeds In producing otner witnesses VINO shall
swear 10 similar confessions, and also introduce
papers, written and slgned BY the defendant,
winch are claimed by the paintiH 70 DE substan-
italy confessions OF the complaint charged but
that any array ol proofs OF this sort snail fail TO
wrongs what would ns the consequence. snou.d
the Jury be satisfied upon sucn evidence
OF the defendants guir In accordance witt the
general rules applicable TO the trla 0! Issues the