The New York herald., 1879-09-28
TILDENS INCOME TAX.
judge ChOate Denies the Motion for a
Bill of Particulars.
AN IMPORTANT DECISION.
Taxpayers Should Know All the
Details of Their Incomes.

decision rendered yesterday by Juds,
Choate in the United States District Court, the
defendants motion. in the suit OF the United States
VS.. Samuel j. Tilden for bill of particulars. Tn,
decision is follows:-
This is suit to from the defendant certain
sums of money aieged to be due and owing from him of
elusive. over and Above the amounts paid by him
for his income taxes during said years respee-
several years the receipt of certain OF money as in
~ which M hs is Isvsra d se.s
exempt from taxation income and in excess OF the
respectively. The up certain defenees grow
ing out OF the returns made by the defendant TO the asses
and the proceedings thereon,
assessments made without return by the defendant
with the penalties where the same were required
by law in petaat OF returns These deienees on
complaint The denies the receipt OF any IN
Of the which he was assessed
and paid The tax The was led June % is7 in The
The defendnt moves for bill OF particulars of the
plaintiffs complaint SIMPLE SAMMY
He makes affidavit that he in good faith intends to de-
OF the claim made against him in said complaint that Il
have rendered him bill of the particulars thereof
he advised by counsel and verify believes lie also
made is that, with reference all
was served defendant advised by his counsel
that the issue OF fact herein could not then be brough
aidavit that 1T is not in his power, and the
al sas tho to
be considered III deermnng what defendants taxable
aied S Of discovery in the Circuit Court "ss on
behalf Of The United States to compel the defendant to
is now pending unanswered in said Circuit Court The
belief alleged misconduct of defendants
counsel with reference certain books OF alleged
TO tain material evidence for the plaintiff this
away in another district while witness under
DENIED
This motion be denied led
practice relating TO the matter of bills of particulars The
" giving ~ reasonable niormation as to the
detais Of tss cltim made against him. effect of
to the tom sths claim dsiailed in ihs bin. The
matter ss dcreon @ c the IN 0Iso cour eas' under s
tue circumstances of the particular general
formation isthns sought peculiarly within the know
than the knowledge or where from the naurs
of the the plaintiff cannot be reasonably
all such the granting Of the order is either
sary or likely do more injustice to the plaintiff than the
refusal OF the relief to the defendant Such
upon the ahdavits presented and considering
is be presumed any mans in.
is still less the several parts of which it is up
entire certainty While the officers of the government
makes it proper to bring suit to recover an
excess of income tax due above that paid that inform
the District Attorney in advance of trial set forth
ii b Of % %y ~s' not ths be sn aa
of before trial obtain information from wit
all the facts within their Enowisde tnder our SYSTEM
nar m1 Sne or pay 10 ea the other as wit
the other party as witness in
rho ,ooavi.. EyAp,se ~ ,mi. I'm THE re POINT AT ISSUE
arising from the nature Of the The
the claim made against hnn He swear that he
ms ct qsrs what tns s
ceipts OF nsome y him during those periods the District
him and claim as taxable ''H,,s income N"ii Thi:
and have account ali the sums OF money he did
receive and as to those it may think well be assumed
may DO claimed to be in whole or in taxable income
danger being surprised upon the trial by the attempted
proof on the part OF the government. through misn
during tLe periods in, question Which he did
nss .r.a IN fact receive II such proof should be
defended against in the of genuine of
as the trial can be delayed for the production of the
on % M S9 as TO hs se pGssSo
tween the parties as to what part If any Of moneys re-
Iiohs might DO properly made. while fal
5n I Sf particulars in the Of
Siderable trouble and labor to the defendant and his
'ary To prevent surprise in meeting the that the
government may put in evidence that he is in danger of
hs proof s thai the plaintiff Is in fact unable to furnish
ilted by the District Attorney the suit mere
nta s 1% i1T 4h general ngussio5
he learned counsel for the defendant who that
Court should by granting this motion
cdible Information which fully juses action though
bat Information be not such enables him make bill
i particulars And it is the oace of bill of partic.
ars merely to discover the evidence on which plaintiff
Giles or the information which his action Is brought
FRIVOLOUS PI.EADINGs.
Inc Court must assume as 20 all parties before it,
whether plaintiff defendant until the appears
hat they acting in good faith, that their plead
nSs which are in the and accustomed FORM
ot frivolous Intentionally false intended
ring to trial the claim defence forth therein That
pton holds to the parties to the acton
nd moreover, in respect TO the plaintiff the
worn officer OF the government. IL must be
resumed what he has done he has righfuy in tho
his oath of office the Information presented to him
md WHILE OF course deduction adverse truth OF
otendants s to be drawn from thus fact this
resumption in favor of the regularity of official conduct
,ould prevent the Court from drawing the Inference
lamcd by defendants counsel from the inability
urn sh bill of particulars since such inability
roseeuting this plaintiffs action. have found IL
10 essary 10 consider whether if the defendant
hould be dene the ground of delay in applying
n because ut tho last April of Court the defend
nts counsel when the called for trial answered
he were ready and would prefer trial. but yielded
% the District Attorneys application Tor delay that
ne might have the opportunity file bill of discovery
u the Circuit Court-a within Icdy of
toHrt though stated in the afdavits 1t
nt the position then taken by counsel
v th the adv given by them TO the and
,asc was declared be ready further
i"rmaiion received or. at least some view
70 tria not before But however this may be- aud
he ieutcs ht be Obvated by further adavits
ut te decision OF the motion the ground above
sted have also dsregarded the alleged misconduct OF
one OF the defendants counsel which do think
ai'y relevancy to this motion. Motion denied.
!. Hariand aud A. j. vanderpoel tor defendant;
s. L. "oodiord. District Attorney. aud ). b. Clarke
Assistant District Attorney. for the plaintiff.