The national Republican. [volume] (Washington City [D.C.]) 1866-1870, 1868-03-27
THE COURTS.

CiRculr CouRT-Judgc Wyic.-ThIS court was
. occupied as follows yesterday;
n g. W. Utermehle va. q. II. Utermehles cxccu-
tors. The plaintiff sought to Introduce evidence
executors yesterday, that {. il. UtermehIS ' had az,
paid out considerable sums of money for his
father, q. W. Utermohc. The explanation Of
tween father and son, tending to show that the
son was Indebted to the father.
The Court decided that az the evidence was
offered to explain or contradict certain facts i'm
material to the Issue, 1t could not be admitted
for the admission of immateriai evidence on one
side was no reason for Its admission on the other
WIFE NOT A COMPETENT WITNESS IN Her Hus.
BANDS CASE
Ii thS further Of the testimony The
counsel for the executors did not object until the
witness was asked 10 narrate some CONVERSE
estate the defendants represent. At this point
Mr.. Davidge interposed the objection that as the
statute made the husband Incompetent as a wit
ceased were parties, a like ineompetency applied
to the wife.
arst removed all the common law restrictions
| on evidence arising from interest In the subject
matter OF controversy. Subsequent statutes
was party to q suit against the estate Of de-
eedent, as to his contracts with the decedent;
but only In that case. As the wife became com.
petent upon the removal Of the common law re.
strictions, she was not rendered incompetent by
the subsequent legislation unless she was party
e nc sui. Here she was no party; she was,
then, competent witness,
Davidge urged that the statute removing the
common law restrictions said not q word about
the wife, but by judicial construction, when a
own case, the wife, being In law one person with
him, became a competent witness likewise
Then, when the law limited the competency OF
the husband, by the same judicial intendmcnt 1t
limited the competency of the wife to the same
extcnt;' so that where husband was not a com.
petent witness, wife could not be.
The Court held that at common law the wife
was excluded from giving testimony In cases
where her husband was Interested, not alone by
reason Of joint, but for grave reasons OF public
policy-to maintain peace In families. II 4 wife
could be called to testify for her husband she
It might be that domestic peace would often be
purchased at the expense OF perjury. The com.
mon law held the family to be the foundation OF
society. and was careful to guard its sacred pre-
einets from the intrusion OF the public. The
Court would have excluded this witness en-.
trely had the counsel for the defendant Objected
to her Introduction; but he would confine her
testimony to those subjects only upon which her
husband could be examined.
Davidge thereupon objected and tho witness
was excluded.
The plaintiff reserved exceptions.
THE CASE COMPROMISED.
The court then took a short recess. At the
close OF the recess, the counsel announced that
they had agreed upon terms OF settlement A
Juror was then withdrawn, and terms Of settle.
These terms are; that the bonds In dispute
be equally divided between the parties; the cor.
poration stock to be held as belonging to de-
fendanti the costs to be equally divided, and
Rittenhouse, Fowler X Co. VS.. Davis; Myers
vs.. McDonough-continued.
CASES TODAY.
Nd sn low cases ,s are s assigned for today
2o3, 1914, 3oj, JO7. and 39s.
Adjourned.