Year: 1879

DEFENDANTS BRIEF ON THE MOTION FOR 4


SATISFY "IMpERTINENT CURIOSITY"


The brief of A. J. vanderpoel. counsel for Samuel
J. Tilden. in the matter Of the motion for bill Of
particulars in the suit OF the United States against
Samuel J. Tilden. fled yesterday in the United
States District Court aud. with the other papers in
the suit. forwarded to Judge Choate last evening.
The brief is as follows This is a motion for bill
OF particulars. and the defendant that he 10
ignorant OF the particulars of the claim made
against him, and that 1t is necessary and material
TO his defence that bill Of particulars be rendered.
This is met by affidavit Of the District Attorney
setting forth that it is not in his power and to the
best Of his knowledge and belief not in the
power Of the plaintiffs to state all the
items or particulars which have to be considered
in determining what defendants taxable income
was for the several years In question. As for the
additional affidavit submitted by the District Attor.
ney we will only say that it requires legal
gument than we possess to discover its bearing on
the pending motion. Tho complaint in each OF its
counts simply alleges that the defendant during the
specified years received gross amount Of income In
excess OF certain vaguely enumerated deductions.
II it is the proper function of this Court to entez
upon general inquisition as to the amount Of
defendants income motion should be do
nicd, but IL its function is to determine upon
the issues issues raised raised, BY the pleadings then
plant charges that received certain gross sum.
lawfully taxable. in excess of the sum upon which
we paid tax. This the answer denies. Upon this
motion We say by affidavit. that we do not know
upon what the complaint il based. Docs the United
states charge us with tho receipt of moncys the
ccipt of which we deny? Does the United states
hold that. OF q sum admitted to DO received by US.
larger portion was taxable as income than we are
willing to admitr Docs the United States claim 20
treat as taxable income receipts which we claim to
be exempt from the tax? Does tho United Statea
claim the lawful right to make? None OF these
questions can be answered from the pleadings, and
they certainly should be made plain, before
enter on the trial. But 1t is objected that the
motion should have been made sooner. q


PRECEDENT. .aa ..ts ~ j,


"No case can be found in which bill OF particulars
has been dcnied In consequences of detcndant's do-
lay In applying therefor, unless the circumstances
have been such as to suggest possible prejudice TO
plaintiffs rights to result from the granting an
order after the delay Here the defendants reasons
for not sooner applying fully set FORTH and it
cannot be claimed either that the defendant would
have been better OF II the motion had boen sooner
made nor that tho plaintiff will now be prajudced
rather than earlier. No discussion to the form OF
d bill appropriate to the present condition Of
tho matter. 10 Inference against the doiendspt;s
right for bill OF particulars be drawn from the
fact that he answered ready at the April ef OF the
Court. He was then ready TO meet. such
evidence he believed the United States to be ready
to produce. The defendant also, In open court, ex-
pressed his Willingness TO give the United States an
opportunity to apply for bill of discovery. II
subsequently the District Attorney fled . bill
which makes no allegation more do1nlte than those
made In tho complaint no conclusion can be fairly
drawn against the defendant this notion because
he chooses to submit to the Court whether he 10
bound to answer. II the defendant owos no tax to
crafty the impcrtinent curiosity OF the District At.
torney as to his private transactions" .,