New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1874-11-14
ARGUMENT OF EX-JUDGE MORRIS.

The counsel has mado very long and elab-
crate that shows great research and Industry
but submit Court that the real question involved
in this application not been presented by the coun-
sci Defense and that the counsel has not ced In
all the authorities which he has called the attention
OF the Court single analogous case. The application
in this case is simply and solely that the plaintiff DO
compelled TO furnish the defendant with q state
ment OF the evidence by which We seek to prove
our claim. This Is not like an action
for divorce where the act Of adultery the foundation
of the acon-tho sole claim In it, This action might be
complete, would be complete without any allegation OF
adultery on the part of the defendant at all The action
is for damages for alienation Of feeling of the wife OF
this plaintiff 1t is for breaking up the homo Of this
plaintiff. 1t for winning the affections OF the wife
from her husband, and as understand the law the
action would be complete without the act OF adultery.
That one of the evidences going to establish the claim
that We make precisely the as If We introduced the
sct showing that he had aenated or sought
Husband. The Claim is for the loss Of society, the
and the comfort of his wife and his home AID they
specify the particular evidence In this
tue particular acts that to make up the CASE
the simple act Of adultery but the frequent visits
at untlmely hours the marks OF affection between the
parties by gifts appointments, DC They could with
equal propnety have asked that we furnish an the
claim with refcrencoto acts by the defendant with
tue plaintiffs vile. ,
proving frequent gifts visits by the defendant to the
plaintiffs wire in the absence OF the piantm Certainly
as we'll as thesel And IL they are entitled TO one
Tney 60 apher and ask that we not only furnish them
with this particular branch OF evidence but the times
and places OF the confessions Of the defendant Way
mint it thati Why not compel Us to give every
tice of our evidence3 was at loss TO know untor
what provision OF law this application made, and
under Section l5 Of Tue Code relating hs to Is
moves, not for bill of particulars Of the plaintiff .
claim, that the plaintiff deliver to the Defendants
attorneys statement. in writing, OF the particular
times and places at which he expects inteuds TO
prove that any acts OF adultery took place between the
defendant aud the wife of the PLAINTIFF and Of the par
ticuar times and places which expects Intends
pros that The defendant confessed any such act Tue
defendant places his application upon the isole ground
that plaintiff Intends upon the trial OF TINS case to
produce false. manufactured evidence thereby telling
tain his case by false and manufactured testimony, aad
50 trying get decision in advance OF the trial,
demning the plaintiff upon that point. Therefore they
would compel US in advance because they believe we
are going produce false manufactured testimony TO
tell what testimony VIC shall otter IN support OF Qua
Ex-Judre Morris here took up copy Of Judge Neil
sons opinion winch IS the SUBJECT OF this appeal and
commented upon it, showing where 1t could not be
thrown. He then said for mis- first point that gem
era rule plaintiff In an action founded In tort would
not be compelled to furnish bill Of Particulars OF his
demand. Murphey agt. K,pp. Daer. 659) And the
only actions founded IN tori Ia whion bh OF parcu-
lars had been allowed was In actions for conversion
OF certain speched personal propery Backie agt Nei
son, Bosw., GSi. Humphrey agt Cortelyou, Cow 6)
When from the nature OF the action II appears that the
party seeking the Oil well, better, than the
adverse party details which he seeks, appl
Tor an order directing bill OF particulars 10 he
served will be Geiend (Youls Do Mott Barb, So
BLcke AIT. Nelson, BJsw.. 6Sl) From the nature OF
tins 1t undoubtedly appears that defen
has better knowledge OF tue facts asks DO
form OF than the plaintiff could have.
The Code Section 1885, empowers the Court in its dis
cretiuu, compel party 10 serve Bill OF particulars
Of Lis claim.
patty IL not allowed 10 search his advcrsary's evil
dcuCo with view Of h10lns out some defect In the
case pat forward by him, ior the purpose Of enabling
him 10 raOut tie anticipated OF the other party Ii
Is notorious fact tn@t ON the TRIAL or THIS action,
there VIII examined numerous witnesses unwilling
10 c1ninae the dctcn liant II ay0idlbe, bOth as TO tho
GRIMM intercourse between Defendant and plaintiffs
wife dn the deiendaut5 confessions or sai inter
course And 10 the times ana places where sons OF
the of Iuterc urse were COMMITTED The plaintiff Is
OF It's process cOmpels the .ad unwilling witnesses 10
disclose tne trial, and 10 would Do dong tue
piIuII great Injustice 10 CODpel hin 10 cOHluo his
evidence 10 certain times and PAGES.
In conclusion, Nudge Morris reDuked Mr. Sherman
for characterizBg the plaintiff cuckold and for
no ding him up contempt and Tor having &C
O. sed his wife. When he does this sail h., nnrl
IL dragging down tho and sailed reputation of
ms WIFE, for he has ever spoken OF her ia udnrs; nut
the learned cOunSePs own cheat brands her by
stating tDat sDe thrust her affections him
sought, coward that he Is TO say HIS committee
say that upon theory OF human rcsJuslDitY can
nor tc nony recUucIied, and he Cdrisun Union
"A Is That her Is wOttths. Tney tuat
tn aud winning heg aItctiJns cast ter taat
they may trainpie upon her as a worthless thing.
nn