Year: 1874

MR.. TILTON'S LAWYERS PUZZLED-MESSRS. TRACY


AND SHEARMAN SATISFIED.


There having appeared to be some difference of
opinion among many persons as to the effect Of
Judge McCue's order granting bill of particulars,
TRIBUNE reporter called last evening on the
various counsel connected with the case in order to
ascertain their views of the order and its probable
effect Below is the substance of their replies to the
questions.


Gen. Tracy said he thought the order was plain
enough, and could not well be misunderstood. The
Court had granted all that had been asked. The
order gave the plaintiff the whole of October IN
which to fix the dates for his accusation and per-
mtted him to bring into court all his documents
and alleged confessions upon which he might base
his evidence II also allowed him to specify in his
bill of particulars any other dates. If be had any,
than those already mentioned in the complaint; but
when once the bill of particulars presented, the
plaintiff would have to conlne himself thereto, and
not ramble about OH general accusation. That
was all the limit he saw in the order as lie had
read it.


Gen. Roger A. Pryor said he had not critically
examined the ORDER as lie had not yet a certi-
fed copy of it; but from the cursory glance he had
given to it in the newspapers he could not clearly
understand its purport. 1t seemed to him to be
something like Pandoras box, and when the case
came up in January the Court would again have to
listen to long speeches from the opposing counsel
He thought that the Judge would by that time
become puzzled to decide. and thus another
long delay would occur before testi-
mony could be introduced. This would
doubtless be what the defendant wanted for if the
defendants counsel had been anxious to go on with
the case, he and his client, with the remainder of
the plaintiffs counsel, would have been ready to
proceed Even as it was, the plaintiff had been
anxious TO proceed this month but the defense had
been able to fight the case in manner to cause
delays so as to pass it over to the January
term. After the certified copy had been received
and had been carefully studied, he would then be
better able to express an opinion upon Its probable
effect.


Judge Morris said that it had been made very evil
dent as to what the defendant wanted Mr.. Evarts
answered that question very plainly on Thursday,
when he said he should claim that if the plaintiff
furnished bill of particulars naming the Two dates
tober-the Jury, in order to find verdict against
the defendant must find that it occurred on one OF
those two dates" This would put the question III
this way: The jury might conscientousy believe
that Mr.. Beecher was guilty, ana the testimony
might show he was guilty; but II the evidence
did not, point concluslvely to one OF those I I'VE
days then the jury was TO be precluded
from rendering verdict OF guilty 1t was true that
the order permitted the introduction OF documents
and alleged CONFESSIONS Dut utiess tney Couiu Oo
broupht TO bear upon specified dates. then the intro
duction of those documents would be rendered
yalueess if the defendant had his desire of limiting
the evidence to the dates which might be specihed
sel expected to accomplish this object by means Of
the order as published in the newspapers. he was
sure that they would find themselves greatly mis-


Thomas G.. Shearman thought that the order lin
tied the plaintiff TO specified time. namely, some
time in October. 1868. This. he thought, was lati-
| 70 4 he alm m,
and socalled confessions. the defendant was wiling
that the plaintiff should bring into court every
paper he had could get that would bear upon % tne
case As to con fessions the defendant denied ina!
any ever existed 1t necessary that there should
he some limit placed on the accuser ana uat ane
t,on ~ such character, without his accnser being
called upon either TO define time OF place Such


limit the order gave, but at the same time allowed
precise time when the ALLEGED crime was said 10
have been committed