New-York tribune., 1879-09-19
Mr.. TlIDrN,. AFFIDAVIT.


repartees d the counsel highly enjoyed by tHe ia"-
yeIs present
MR. TlIDEN's AFFIDAVIT.
Mr. TIarl.ud began bis opening rcn1rA- III l'V"r OF
tie motion I'LL OF paIticu nrs ny reading tie ioi-
lowing affidavit made by vi. T.don, tAo defendant.
and dated = eptcmber 10, 1879:
Samuel j. rIden, beng duly sworn, says that he =
the nc endant the above entitled actuni tnat inc
complaint was served on him Apil ia, 70 '"au 'p
money alleged 10 be due 10 the pHintM "rl4t'TnAl
taNts a. on Inc Income 9i h' ueci u"' o e"o
several yehis between January J. l'D-' .'.' ~
81 ls1l tlat tie said cause OF causes or ni"n are -
maun'T 9,nS Tie particulars Of e clam; tha' I ec;
f,pfant u good i'tn inte ds t. crirnd me aolDn sn
that hc ls ignorant of the p.utcuiafs OF me 'l"n
made "s.tn'l ni, w s"u af'noe tiar ls
EEK ' a." s,,e rtIcrrd 70 him a. ni II tie
particulars iher,O, Us he ls adNct hj hs hnc. ana
ver bcleves. Dtpourut urtA,r .gff thtt Pee las APP
ueare0 iR thc action. aud thai the cause J. az Issue ~
Tbat an. reason why fhi- appI was nIf sooner
made n tn, wifn reference 20 a prcccdin. terms Of
this court. auce .d answer wss served, deirud' lag
been advised hy Dos counsel tai tLe Issue oi iatt
herein could not then be brought to trial.
ARGUMENT FOR THE MOTION.
After dwelling briefly on the fact= alleged In t" ohi
davit Mr HaIlaud went into an elaborate ana minte
history Of tho various steps thar Lad taken IN the
case IN the apparently withthe intention ofyug
the blame or the rcpcacd delays upon tue Cos eminent
The caso." said hc, a unques ouably peculiar one
account o. tne position oi the defend ~ Al,n,y
matters trc by 40 means the Only CONSIDERATION ~
yOlycd. and 81 Is for the crcAG@nVs interest 10 nave De
matter decided stated u me ih lVlt IN, ai'n--
am h's never before moved Tor l' o ps tcliat7 D
cause each term We have unier'iood the case Wis
not coming 70 rial OF hs qucslD1 "i ls'5 Ine I yNa,-
paint of the Government ls genera" 10 H. 'ii-, "l"t
ing that tue defendant received ceIin go-s sums each
year. We entitled 20 hni n partrui1I-.
The Disinc-Attoney must have some basis for
his con plan-nore specific facts INN noe nlsg,u ~
these part cuars n order that we iay pIo-
MIR. wooDroRD's REPLY.
Tn reply to these statements D.strict-Auorncy Wood
ford delivered carefully prepared argument, citing
numerous legal authorities In support Of MS several
points, and preflcing his remarks proper With denial
that the Government had been the OK the delays
I'm the trial Of the case.
It is related" he began, that Horace Napoe R,"r
reading pamphlet upon certain occasion said rms
must nave been written enable the author To write
pre aee and my trends elaborate Te,une OF wia' he
regards the ressons for the repe@ed deRys IN tns
case 10 bears strong resemblance TO tms PFC
fucc" Mr. WOOdiord then proceeded 10 show that the
delays not attributable 70 the Cove nut aitor
which he began h's argument by reading tWO anlt''t
In one he aad that II was not N lis power 10 stare ~
the items and particulars asked ioi ara tnat hr hag
fled hil o discovery. winch Nss ~ yet unanswered
IN the Circuit Court behalf OF the United States 30
compel the defendant 10 make disclosure thereoi an
his second aIa,vit General MoodiOrd rehehise1 tue
familiar acts IN connection "ith the nyslerous ulsaP
praIaucc Of the booss ~ ace ult dt marquette Mlcl
IN september, lrfs ana "IfneH 'int ese oooAs
contained evldcnce material ana necessary 10 he case
Tor the planti In ths action. Attr IS'G,ng ne ~ -
lac began argument on the legal aspects OF the
case.
A BILL OF PARTICULARS NOT A MATTER OF RIGHT.
By the Common LAW, said the speaker, the power 10
order bill OF particulars IA Inherent Independent OF
statute IN all Courts of slpr the Jurisdictions, and it
may be- exercised any II IN the opinion of the
Court Justice requires. but the dcendeut IS not en-
titled To- a nil matter Of right. whether hill VIII
he ordered or not matter wlthln the toUe discretion
Of the Cont Or dc ermincd by c'n-itea'l o Gii
the circumstances ~ the case. Ihis post on " 4s for
fifed with citations from cases. Tee tnect oi
granting h Oi particular Is to conre the plautil
evidence ut the tral 10 he Items stated ia he DiL lie
must b. nuusui'ed II he cannot make ti ~ deuce con-
form the b however relevant II mar b" - ma decla
ration or 60 pAiuf Mang oi the referred to went
10 show thd u Wac the assumption tutt the defence iad
an LIowled-o of al the particulars Tor which
n..rd Ia sor bal of particula tue a1iaVit
should state tDU TIE petitioner does NOT believe aud
cannot form opinion as to the matters Win which lie
IL charged; that ilo cna. ge Vag htl he does
know ne charged wlth. An nftayt That he Is
ignorant the particulars and facts which defendants
,Apcc prov. " tnat he h@r 40 know edge, lnlOI
nation or Dtcf to The persons tunes OF places oi the
whicn tie defendants propose % establish the
nateIal aYefmcnis etc" Is wholly insufficient To sus-
tain un order ior sue IA bill.