The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-15

| t"ttrhtN % 0hhfN f&a ATTtNMWk2x
~ ts Msrr ef 4 Ayys.s-.~- f. a. Assses
n'ent sesina Lssz' Tasyss saf b. $40 D~s
lass. for no answer az nsere ~. e. /. osw
mission is~ned ous a b Goa GO Cassa q \. a a
| Huron county, Ohio, whers Bcas.si y -
| plaintiff. and Kisnsa v seftnsxht.
Mitchell, 4. J.--Lewis Tap sas N 80 ussr
cantile agency IN this CO nnul isfe. xbea b. ~sid
out 10 Arfbar Tnppxn rad hcalsmia bsaRls~
Tie interroesterles SEEN - b. es-s o. ~ s~psa.
siiion that the deiendsus in t-ts cs ists. 80 "a
agent Of the mercantile svcnev. ard thru csts N
nicated In the sgsa~y In erftnr stAl~Wfnt n slas
eharsc'er OF the plaintlfs. ~hsh VS. hs~lisuA
Inc answ-r chow Cor u j. unarr~soed) tass 10 y
tae businc's OF such A~tnry " rr0rd tl.s~
&C nnuDications. ad ~ exh1., thrta a. ", ruLaas.
inquiiine m to the ssssoinT ef the psr-oU. a,rs
ficns. ~ thels. The ccnwuni-aiira- aaa tae -.
cords OF them may have hccn cxhihi<a ssd ~ eaA
lsbed (as the isw ,erms No e.ts, yrar sl~es ne,
were fcynished they MAY have ts-ra 30 sxa4h.tra
BY Lewis Tsppan although h. hss snhars1a fses
tle buso sse. ano BY Levi. Tappav sua DeaFisss.
WHO now Rave sncc-s-jed hiui. ailsoaxh taes sers
II IN the insiDcsa vhsn The man ss4sn sAs 70
c hed 1teee Nv. arr asses n kinn4n snaan
s,eh a confausicaiios Ia isss " isas sna they a~
clirs to an'str. beeaure the answer ms, fern lss
in the chain ~ evidence wblrh rsy tend g. 70 sy.ot
then, OF libel. As tho exhibition of the pap m.s
lave hen within year the statute 81 hat ati~es
wuulC be no bar "a prosecution for Iibel, aud 20
the uspondenf@ are not bound 20 srSwcf on accoasa
OF any supposed protrcton 90 h. derived ffem thai
statute. 1bf w,fiees al ne kuows the facts hsyao1
those contained in the answer which m.y teai 20
his conviction the Cour, j. Mt compel him u t~is
what thoss facts ~ thcwfre he says tlAt she en-
swer may terd ~ convict him. ON thaf ascena re-
fne To and the Cout can imagine ~, ~tssr
OF facts under which tbe answer might lead q .ach
sresuIt the witness mas insist On the proieciioa of
the law and refuse to answer II thee witresss-
saould answer yes-such communication ap8 rc-
csived from Sinnan at that tme-an they r,sfe ~
contents. ana other witnesses prnye that vftaln the
laf year Lewis and Arthur Tappan aud H. Dsax-
ass ext bited the letter from kinnaD evidence a
the pIanaifs character the proof OF tbese rrspos-
dents guilt might be- made out, when withoul tisew
al tsver there might be evidence OF the conlents
OF the letter. Examinations Of witnesses under CON
missions from OH er States may BE- much ab ed
III less ample protection be given TO the witnesses
by our COURTS and when the witnesses may be sub
Jected f0a civil suit Ia consequence of their answer.
and (as In Gaze OF libel which may be published in
different States,) may lie subjeet 10 indictmens is
digereBt States, and then not protected by any
statute Of limitations on account ol non sdenco
in those States, courts should use jealous care
to protect them. The honest ought not 10 be forood
to be their own accusers, nor the dishonest 10 hs
the People w. Mather a Wepd. 264) the rule A. -
the kind Of questions which the witness may decline
answering Is clearly stated; and nnt witbstsndnG
the broad language uecd in the statute the Cha0-
cellor decided in q similar case paige COZ ia The
matter Of Kip) that the witness Is B0t Obliged u
criminate himself, answer my question which no
would not be bound 10 answer IL examined In open
court that the Legislature never intended to estsb
lsh an inquisition by which witncsaes sh0nid be
compelled 70 criminate themselves or 70 disclnss
secrets Ia which the party to the examination had
no interest" The other interr0gatories are a. OBJ
jectioDablc as the one above specially referred %.
The motion for an attachment Ia denied