New-York tribune., 1874-12-12
THE SCANDAL SUITS.

The decision of Judge McCue upon the application
OF Mr.. Beechers counsel for bill of particulars
| from Mr.. Iilton. was rendered yesterday. As ex-
pected with more or less certainty by both parties,
the application is granted and the bill of particulars
| ordered. The decision is as follows
JUDGE M'cUE's DECISION.
Ciy Court of observation-disclosures Tilton agt. Henry
Ward Beecher.-Motion for a bill OF particulars.
The Court OF last resort has decided that this Court
has power to order bill Of particulars 10 oil descrip
tons OF actions when the circumstances are such that
justice demands that party ehall be apprsed Of the
matters for which he is to be put trial. with greater
partcuarity than required by the rules of pleading
Application is now made by the defendant for a state.
ment In writing verified by the plaintiff. Of the particu.
lar times and pla at which he expects intends to
prove the commission Of criminal acts between the
defendant and tho plaintiffs wife.
AFTER careful examination Of the papers submitted
on the motion, and after deibcrang upon the ae and
suggestive arguments Of counsel OF opinion that
the present case is proper for the exercise Of
judicial discretion. and that the plaintiff can. without
any injustice to himself give the defendant the nforma
uon desired by him. to enable HIM to prepare fully
to meet the plaintiffs charges.
Ihe law Imposes impossblity and does not require
from the plaintiff the designation OF the precise day at
the hazard OF failure Of justice IL he fail prove the
upon the precise day named 1t Ia sufficient he desg
mates the day with such reasonable approximation
'hc IauIy apDrlseu OF Inc cnargee.
In view OF tho affidavit Of tho plaintiff read this
motion 1t Will be sufficient for him to state in the bill of
particulars to be furnished that the two criminal
intmacy alleged TO have taken place on the 10th and
l7th days OF October 1863 committed about
those days and at either the other OF the places
mentioned In the affidavit suggested by OF the
counsel for the defendant. 1t may be regarded su
cent 10 say that these acts were committed during the
month OF October, 1868. Such O statement fairly
acquaints the defendant with tho charge he ia to meet
think 1t not improper to remark hero that the frank
ness with which the defendants counsel concede that
such statement may be regarded reasonable COM
pance with the rule proper to be applied in such case
as THIS, renders this application Of dspOs
tion than 1t seemed to be when the motion first
made at the Special Term.
The objection TO give statement Of particulars seems
to rest mainly upon tho ground that the designation OF
particular aes OF adultery necessarily excludes proof OF
confessions made by the defendant going to establish
acts OF adultery when time and place named in
the confession The general confession Of the defendant
may be given in evidence against himself and they may
be sufficient II accepted in fu force by the jury to
vict the defendant; and 1t is clear that all declarations
writings and documents which properly admissible
In evidence be used with all the forcc and effect
they deserve against the defendant establish the
Issue.
The radical difference in the proposed orders sub-
mted by the respective COUNSEL seems to he this The
giving evidence of acts Of the defendant BY which the
adulterous intercourse charged In the complaint may be
established, "although 1t may not thereby appear to
have been committed any particular day, at any
particular place - while the other hand tho defend
ant insists that II by acts it is intended TO specific
acts OF adultery the bill Of particulars should state these
fairness with reference time, place.
and circumstances, suggested in relation to the
two alleged to have been committed In the month
October cannot we'll understand how any act
OF the defendant be offered as proving directly and
specially the aulterOus intercourse charged In the COM
plant, "alrhough it may not thereby appear to have
been committed particular day or at any parcu
lar time" Such to be the plaintiffs propOsit0n
Such proof would necessarily not only establish the
commission OF the adultery but also with some degree
Of certainty both the time and place.
There is no practical difficulty in reconciliDg this ap
parent anita gonism, declared by the court Of last
resort, in the decision made IN this case. The Court
must 10 1t that both parties are fairly dealt WITH
II the plaintiff proposes TO any specific acts Of
adultery alleged to have taken place in October 1853 it
should be so stated. II the plaintiff does not propose
this II is hardship to limit him to proof of the specific
charges which he intends to press.
Tue plaintiffs proposition that IL he be thus limited
and fail IN his proofs the acts alleged to have taken
place in October 1863 the defendant, "though confess
ing his guilt to other times aud Places must neces
sarily be acquitted, seems entirely untenable.
In the shape which the former motion was made
there force in tho objection for 1t then asked
that the plaintiff sh0nld be confined In his proofs to the
times mentioned in the bill OF particulars. On the pres
ent application however Is not sought to deprive the
plaintiff of the benefit Of the general confessions OF the
defendant. Such rule might indeed shield defend
ant from just responsibility" We propose no such re-
straint.
As to tho specific acts Of crime charged against the
defendant he should DO advised OF them with reason
able precision As the results which may follow the
proof OF acts tother than specific acts OF aduer doc
uments confessions and any other circumstances prop
ery admissible in evidence. they must be left to the de-
termination the jury under the rules LAID down by
the Court the trial.
1 am of opinion, therefore. first, that the plaintiff
should be limited as to bill OF specific acts OF adul
terry to those named by him In his bill OF partlcuars
second that this order Is to be construed as prohb
tng the plaintiff from introducing the trial OF this
action testimony which may be admissible under the
general rules Of evidence to any acts (other than
specific acts of adultery declarations, writings docu-
mens and confessions which alleged confessions no
particular time or place shall have been referred to.
No costs OF this motion. A. MCCUE, Judge
The order is by no means as stringent as the ono
asked for BY the counsel of Mr. Beecher, and much
less than anticipated by llltons counsel
The whole civil suit in the City Court has hinged
on this bill of particulars; the whole conduct OF the
case trial f it is ever tried. which is unlikely
will be controlled by it. Originally the bill asked
for would have prevented Tilton from giving Mr.
Beecher's alleged confessions in evidence The
order asked for on Thursday seemed to go still fur
ther. for it was carefully drawn with design to
preclude Tilton from even offering any evidence
which would even tend to prove any criminal act
not specifically set forth to time and place. This
would have thrown out the evidence of the Moul-
tons. Mrs. Bradshaw. Miss Tilton. and va
rious others to whom it is claimed Mr.. Beecher'
going about unburdening his mind at dinner-tables
with raey stories of his various Oenses against So
niefy had told all about hia affair with Mrs IlltOn