The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1879-09-24
MIR. TILDEN'snINcOME TAX
Argument on the Defendants Motion for a
Bill of Particulars.
New York WOrld.l


The motion made by counsel for Samuel
J. Tiiden to compel the Government to file
bill OF particulars in the suit for income tax
brought against Nh. Tilden was argued yes
terday before Judge Choste in the United
States district court The suit is for about
10000. Mr.. Thomas Harland. Mr.. Tilden's
lawyer, read the following affidavit of Mr..
Tilden's:
Samuel ]. Tilden, being duly sworn, says that
he is the defendant In the above entitled ac-
ton that the complaint was served on him on
brought to recover certain large sums Of money
alleged to be due to the plaintiff for internal
revenue taxes upon the income of the defend
ant for the several years between the LIST day
of January, 1862, and the 3lst day of December,
1871: that the saiG cause or causes of action are
alleged generally in the com plant and with
out IN any manner stating the particulars of
the claim; that defendant in good faith intends
to defend this action, and that he is ignorant
of the particulars of the claim made against
him in said complaint; that it is necessary
rendered to him a bill of the particulars there
CT, as he is advised by his counsel and verify
appeared in the action, and that the cause is
at issue by the service of his answer on or
about the 2Sd day of June, 1877. That the rea-
son why this application was not sooner made
is that with reference to all preceding terms OF
this court since said answer was served de-
PENDANT has been advised by his counsel that
the issue of fact herein could not then be
brought to trial. SAMUEL j. TILDEN.
Tenth day Of September, 1879.
Counsel set forth the different steps that
| had been taken in the suit and the delays
that had occurred and remarked that the
| defendant was interested in having the case
disposed of. 1.-THE defendant swears," said
| Mr.. Harland, that he knows nothing of the
| items composing the sum mentioned in the
! complaint. Testimony has been taken in
| Boston tending to show that in 1872 the de-
! PENDANT received from railroad there three
notes as compensation for services spread
over a number of years from 1867 down.
| Does the plaintiff mean that this sum was
| spread SO much over one year and SO much
over another? No delay can come to the
| Government by the defendants otiOn for q
bill of particulars. The court at which the
case is to be held will not open until No.
| vember, and the district attorney has ample
time to prepare the BILL"
| United States District Attorney Woodford,
IN opposition TO the motion, said that the
| meaning of the defendant in making it was
to enable him to give reason for the delay
| in the case. The principal cause of the delay
was the defendants applications for adj
| journments. 1t was not in the power of the
| plaintiff to give the items of the suit in the
bill of particulars. Mr.. Woodford then read
| his own and other affidavits relating to the
| delays in the hearing of the cause, and
| quoted from various legal authorities to
| show that bill of particulars should not be
| furnished by the plaintiff, and argued that
| the defendent had during all this time
| Known the lteIuS OI Hl5 luCOm6 tdr DotteI
than the district attorney. who had only
learned what had drifted to him. All the de
PENDANT was IN ignorance about was what the
Government knew. He would like to know
this SO that he might shape his defense tc
the charges against him and SO get an OPP
portunity TO DENY the charges Granting
bill of particulars would prevent the plaintiff
from putting Mr.. Tilden on the stand and
would seal the mouth of the one man from
whom they might extract the facts of hi.
| income. Mr.. Woodford hoped his honor
would not grant the bill, since to do Sc
would nullify trial of the issues and pre-
| vent just determination of the cause.
Judge Choate reserved his decision.