OCR Text |
Show That Kill of Purticulars. J New York, 10. The argument on i the order to show caue why a bill oi particular.-! should not be granted in the Tilton-Ueecher suit came up today to-day before Judge McCue in general term, in tiie court room at Brooklyn. Tillon was present. Sueanvin opened the. argument by reading the order to show cause. Kx-Jmlgi; Morris then read the affidavit ofTiiton. It recites that Ibe sum totil of th-- knowledge now pos- sessed by him of the conduct com-' plained of bt-tw.en Henry Ward Beccherand Elizabeth li. Tillon, and of the tim -s and places thereof, ! consists in confessions made by Beecher to Francis D. Moulton, ivu- ma R. Moulton, Tiieo lore Tilton and ' oilier,-'; confessions made by Ehz ibeth . R. Tillon to Emma li. Moulion, Martha B. urudshaw, Florence Til-ton, Til-ton, Theodore Tilton and other! persons, and acts, declarations and conduct by Beccherand Mrs. Tilton, 1 tending to pi of, without locating acts to any times or places, and various circumstances not amounting to' direct proof, derived from acts, or d , declarations, and written papers and documents ot Beecher and other persons. Tilton also says that tbe confessions made to him named but two specific occasions and but two places when and where criminal conduct con-duct was had, namely, one at the house ot tho defendant, in Brooklyn, on tho 10th of October 1S0S, and the other at the house ol plaintiff, on the 17th ol Oi-tober, lSiiS. But the de ponent is not, ansoiineiy c-mutiu iimi. the abovp are the precise dates given by said confessions, but is positive they were about and very near those two days. Nor is deponent positive that the places assigned to theso dates weie as above suited, it being possible that the intercourse in-tercourse stated above as occurring on Ibe 1'Ah n; October, ISb'S. may have been at ibe house of deponent and that on the 17t!i of October, lSi!S, at the house of the defendant. And deponent further says that the con-tessions con-tessions made to him admitted various vari-ous acts of adultery by defendant with the wife of the deponent between the lOih of October, lSbS, and the spring of 3S70; but did uot particularize any time or place otherwise than as stated; that despondent does not expect to be able on trial to prove by any eye-witnesses any such intercourse, or tc prove any d finite time or place when or where such intercourse occurred except by confessions, and that they are the only prool ol adultery charged within the control or knowledge ol deponent, and which he expects to be able to oiler on the trial. Tillon concludes his affidavit bj asking tho court in caso the bill ol particulars is granted to insert n clause to the following c fleet: But this order is not to be so construed or applied as to prohibit pUintifl from introducing evidence of confessions, ac's, declarations, writings and documents, docu-ments, which may be admissaldc under the general rule3 of evidence, as if this oMer hud not been made, and which do not in terms refer tc any particular actor time of adulteiy, but proving by such evidence the adulterous intercourse charged in the complaint, although it may not thereby appear to have been conu mitted on any particular day, or at any particular place. After the arguments of counsel had been heard, the court took the papers and reserved its deeisiou. |