New-York tribune., 1879-09-29
THE COURTS.
Mr.. TILDENs MOTION DENIED.

Mr.. TTDENs MOTION DENIED.
JUDGE cHoATE REFUSES TO ORDER BILL or PAR
1ICUIARs IN TIE INCOME TAX SUIT.
The motion made 10y counsel for Samuel J.
Ilden IN The suit brought against him by the Govern
meut for The recovery Of arrears Of Income tax for
bin Of particulars denied Saturday by Judge Choaie
in the United States District Court. In hts decision
Judge Choate after giving synopsis VI the procee
ings already had In the suit saysi
This motion must be denied upon the wel-scitcd rules
OF practice relating TO the matter OF bills Of particulars
The object cuoh bil is Ia pr"vont surprise upon
the trial by giving the defendant seasOnable information
as 10 the details Of the claims made against him. and
the effect of ordering the bill T. 70 limit the plaintiffs
evidence strictly tho items Of his claim detailed in
the bill The granting refusing VI the order in such
case h matter the discretion Ot the Court, under the
circumstances Of the particular In general. such
bill s not ordered whero the matters OF which nforma
tjon Is thus sought are peculiarly within knowledge
OF the defendant more within the defendants than
the plaintiffs knowledge or where. from the nature OF
the case the plaintiff cannot be reasonably expected 10
be able to give the items OF his claim with certainty In
all such cases the granting OF the is either
cessary or IL likely to do Injustice to tho plaintiff
than the refusal OF the relief to the defendant Such
seems 10 me- upon the aflavts presented and cOnsiG
erng the nature OF the issue to be tried, 20 be
the present case. Tho Government is not t.
be presumed to know what any mans income
Is. still less the several parts OF which Il
these things with certainty. While the officers OF the
Government may bave such credible information to
Taxpayers income as makes It proper TO bring suit
to OF income due above that paid
ena tbe Distrs1-i itorney IN advance OF The triei
10 sci forth the going to make the income
not be able, Oi court and before trial. tO obtain
formation from witnesses who. under subpoena. may be
compelled disclose all the facts within their knOw
o en thc other as witness party mav RELY far d.
f.fla he min rs "A
in court The defendant III this case does not Oyerbear
or affect this presumption. arising from the nature ~
the case. The defendant swears that he Is ignorant
OF the particulars OF the claiu made against him. He
does not swear that ignorant of the particulars of
his income during the periods in question All that he
is ignorant of is what receipts OF money by him during
those periods the DstrictAttOrney intends TO put ia
evidence against him and 10 claim constituting tax
able income This may well be. but he is TO be presumed
money he receive. ana those II may, mink.
well assumed that he or his counsel readily antic
which OF them may be claimed 10 be III whole or IN
| part as taxable income.
danger Of being surprised on the ia by the attemnted
proof part OF the Government through misnfor
nation otherwise, OF the receipt OF moneys during
the periods question which be did not IN fact
II such proof should he offered It would 10 be
une case OF surprise 0f this kind. the defendant wOud
not be without relief the trial can be delayed for lie
the other possible points suggested that NAV arise con
fcung claims between the parties as u what parts OF
any moneys received taxable income, or what de-
| dncuons might be properly made. While full bill OF
particulars, IL I'm the powerof tho Government TO give
IT, nigbi considerable trouble aud labor 10 tue de-
fendaut ana his counsel In preparing for tna II seems
not 20 necessary 10 prevent surprise IN meeting
thecase that the government may put In evidence that
he s of injustice from the want OF such bi.
on ne other hand the proof Is that the Plaintiffs. IA
fact unable 10 furnish such bill. Nor is IL 20 bc In
rerred frou this TACT admitted by the Dlsuct-Aito
new that the suit is fishing suit brought for
general nqusOn into the private affairs OF The defend
ant suggested by learned counsel FOR the dcieudaut
who urges nat the Court should 10y granting TINS mo
| tion. dscOuntenance sucu suit As pointed out
above paintin may have credible Information which
fully Jnstihes action, though that Information be not
such a. enables him make bill or particulars. Aud
II IA not the Office Of bill OF particulars merely 20 dis
the evidence which piintin relies or The IN
formation on which his actOu Is brought The Court
assume, to all parties before H. whether PLAIN
tf or defendant until the contrary appears that they
are acting GOOD faith, and at the pleadngs whlch
are i'm be proper aud form frivolous
nor Intention ally false but intended to bring u trial
The cnim or defence set forth therein That presum
non holds as the parties TO the present action. and
moreover respect tO he painh. the complaint beng
made It's behalf by sworn Onicrr OF tue
| Government, II must be further presumed that
what he done he has done riEhtfuly. IN
| the due course OF his Ofical duty and under the
responsibility Of his oath Of Office upon the Information
presented to him. And while, OF course. no deduction
adverse to the truth of the defendants answer IA to bo
drawn this TACT this presumption III aNor OF
the regularity of oicial conduct would prevent the
counsel from the alleged inability TO urnish bii of
particulars, such inability ~ not necessarily incon
with good faith IN bringing and prosecuting the
| plaintiffs action.
have not found it necessary consider whether, IL
the defendant otherwise entitled To bill OF partc
uars the motion should he denied the ground O de-
lay applying for IT, because, mt the last April term
OF Court the defeDdant counsel when the case
called for trial. answered that they were ready and
would prefer To 20 10 trial. but yielded 10 thc District
opportunty TO to bill OF discovery In tho Circuit
Court fact within the owedge OF the Court though
no s,sea them en- tan tassn Sy Inconsistent with
the advice given by them TO the dofendant and In
such perhaps II should DO shown that since the