New-York tribune., 1874-11-20

was Of the essence of SANDER that the words had been
spoken In the and hearing Of other people, and
easily aecessi5s Of fixing the occasion, and with
certainty the timo OF the wrong No such presumption
naturally arises here indeed tno contrary 70 So"o
30 far as civil actions are concerned the great par
tlcularity in stating time and place. 10 suits FOR DIVORCE
seems to us to be peculiar that action Our attention
has not been directed 10 ease In the STATE and am
for damages for q wrong committed. where the time Of
the commission Of the act Is not material to constitute
the Of action, that the particular time must DC
stated and proved according to the allegation; Tne
dissenting opinion 10 Early as Smith very ,bs
TIL in point Of form 70 aege tune ana place Sr ,ba bae
he is not tied up as TO his proof either to tune or
place. II has been no objection that the trial he
the nadsr s at % @ ne oas Sas aa he
laid It at another" This re as to other tors nelud
Ing the & sa.s s ass fs IN
the same opinion "I issaid. Oh II Is great hardship
precise times and places which he alleged to have
Committed the ofenses charged against + HIM" o,,..
bly, So With all the uncertainties Of human testimony
no man forcsee the chances and accidents OF ta,
and aa TO iumaterial circumstances, great LATITUDE
should be allowed This would be still more apparent
from consideration of tho nature OF the PROOF upon
rely. the moving afdayits make extracts from pup,
statement Of the plaintiff m ~ which HI ne s spesEs o.
ant It present apparent how her confessions
be sd Of as Ss the
statement. % quoted, that suas confessions fur
n.atcQ him with the Information as TO the
dates which would enable him to comply with
the order sought for, nor Is 10 quito clear that
q plaintiff In such an action ought 10 DO compelled
TO rest his case upon the reliability of data
so obtained, II the particulars were given him.
Now. suppose the plaintiff comes into court and upon
the trial confessions of guilt as made TO him
by defendant broad enough to sustain the complaint
credited by the jury suppose he succeeds In producing
and Introduce papers written and signed by the
defendant which claimed by the plaintiff to be sub
etantiay the complaint charged but that
any array of proofs Of this sort shall fail to point
cfc DAYS the alleged wrongs what would be
the should the jury be satisfied upon such
evidence the defendants guilt In accordance with
the general rules applicable to the trial OF ssuesrucs
which conceive fair and just-the plaintiff would
In that case be entitled 10 verdict. He would have
made upposng the Jury TO ind as stated the sub
stance Of the allegations, and would matter not
whether the wrongs were admitted upon this day or
that within the general period covered by the COM
paint But II we should make the order which s now
asked for the defendant might IN the first place with
point to some specific time, and in the next demand
verdict of aequtta IL the jury should believe the
evidence against him. because le had not been shown 10
have committed the Oense at the particular times to
which the plaintiff had been confined by the order and
the bin OF particulars II this result would not follow
upon such state OF facts no object in asking for
the order anu IL such result follows 1t seems o me
it would be O roprOach upon the administration OF
justice. 49,,
think the parties have perfectly fair trial OF
the issues ordinary way, and am, therefore In
favor of affirming the order made at Special Term, and
that without COsts GEO. G' REYNOLDS, judge