New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1877-10-16
THE COURTS.
MIR. PARK MEETS A CHECK.
his ATTTNPT TO FAVE A LARGE PART OF THE Tiai
~ AA.ANLn srnIcKEN or EAIIs.


HIS ATTTNrT TO UAvR A LARGE PART OF THE IiHb
UNE's ANSWER STRICKEN OUT FAILS.
I'm the suit of Trcnor w. Park against IHi
TRIBrNE Association the plaintiff sought to have All ih'
defendants answer stricken ont. except general u'
of the plaintiffs charges and au admission oil the P"o
cation OF the matter alleged to be- lhclor' Judge joan
son, IN the United states Circuit Court, Gene" '!'
plaintiffs motion. Tie principal parts OF tla jung
opinion a. fOIlows
The questions raised upon this motion relate 10 tne
answer uterpOsed by Tie dcfeudat winch 'uI l',,a
contain donal5 Of lie planiFs al era'ns' th
plaIntiE has complained Of ~ lnclnu., ii Hi7J ~
stances The general rules OF pleading prescbel ~ nc
Code. which involved, ale CDhailtu ih ~
which resc,iies that the answered. the defendant msi
contain: %. general Oy specific denia OF c''h
LEGATION OF the complaint cOniloFtIieu ~ lic
ant, or OF any knowledge or lmefu ,,,ocnt ~
sufficient to form relief ~. rt4't .iu'it VI
any matter ustiiuiiug defence OF ouhit
IN ordinary aud coHcse language NH.n, i1i ~ ,aiI
t Lac certain pres I1htd modes oI nhlHhhs i''i' -
section IJ2 II X provided mat sham aud irrelevant
answer and defruces may be stricken ont on mote
and urOn such Tic court may ln its usC'tuu
iruo.c Vud. section I3 ire plaintiff may iu all cases
denur to IN answer containing new nait,r Mnrh upon
i face il does not constitute defence. sun other RENE
dies are given 10 correct defects in pleading by section
100 When clact that il irrelevant redundant matter
be inserted IN pleading may be stricken out ON mo
tiun az any pcraon aggfirSod ihotoy And "hel tHo
nIcc.fious Of a pleading are Indefinite or uncertain
thar the precise nature of the charge or defence i NY
appa ne, the cont may require TIE Peus 10 DC 'l''
definite aud r;;dn 10y amendment: - - -, a.
M, piaiutiT 1as not demuired 10 the answer OF inc
defendant, but has obtained an odor 20 aNpN clu,i ~
lie nature of notice Of motion, by when Lt ASKS t'
mo answer from folio > 10 folio 60, containing al
The matters pleaded by the defendant except EetIai
denial of a tlc material ALLEGATIONS O. TIE colip!hH
and an admission ~ the publication of te WORDS l g
to be- ,ous should be stricken ont T. h.5 been 'ld
;iy tfe sWr,luc Court OF NcW-lUk On various tistS'
That the party who claims 10 be a-ereNeu D3 Ie'In-
dancy or irreievanc{, cannot tIoH "iII" ,1,,,',S
court the day Of examining TIE pi'"uns'
sentence hv sentence. aud OF picking out Hucp
uIrt az may be found to be subject 10 those fahiis
U}r,aut agt. Bryant, Roberts y. Ol2i bcntd ~
notice the Darts of thc pleading ohlcc'eu TO- ne h.' ~
least Dee prepared ~ maintain ma 'he "HGe lI'A s
subject 90 the objection as upon Athei.I ~. no. 20
a i1drf's charge the excepting WrtN VIII ial uht-S
every mart Of Tie charge There = the more
rg ON for aC herring % tai. Ic, because ulfNinf iAt
opor Marty has not given 20 hm the opportunity ol
amendment, ana Of thus avoiding hA6atiOh aLs"t4h-
C1on the Tial such questions Of relevancy can be
raised upon proposed testimony ana uc ii-i oi th'
marty can DE- thus protected, 80 least t5 "cd - py PIE
i,u.i,arv motion. Iuutr Che Old system or suctiii
demurrer. the specific objection and iie pan Z" me
pleading claimed 90 bt faulty were required tpD- piii
ont. II he plaintiff virtue were attacked, tht NiA o
pleading Would becVme more olHIetut ana "oud con
sumo u Us examination aG correction ALch more iiiAc
than the Old system demanded.
/ timk for lhcrc reasons. among others that the
state Courts have interpreted the statute correctly IA
this lcspec, ANA tIat their pr1Cltc Ought I" pc loi
Ioved. While T. quite probable that the answer con
tau~ matters which might have been successfully ou-
iitd 10 II pl0DlIy ertCird ia hc notice oI ofltt on
winch tbe plaintiffs motion made, 10 is equally clear
tHat tie whole body o.. The answer s mot thua oIc,o-
able Ihe aNCImtts OF good futl anu want oil malice
least have, Of sustained brailhs lh ."tt up"h lA,
question adj damages. The defendant upon TIC "IL'-
urut claimed tGe benefit o. the deCct 0I Tie hoicc,
ana rs. think, clearly entitled 10 H. IIc lHouoh must
bc denied.
l. J.. Chiuenden appeared forthe plaintiff Mr. Park !;
Cornelius \. Runkle for the defendant.