New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-11
he has made similar statement before the relation


acnce-the standard and nfabe authority in the courts
VI Engiand-I refer to Taylor Evidence" We nnu
the following language tvo 2, Sec. 1,330l:
Where evidence Of contradictory or 9tner
Improper conduct on tho part OF nson s or OBJ
tanned from other Witnesses with tSs vs o ruS Being
Tins mt in sse in some sort been deemed reason
abe that general evidence that he man OF strict in
aSy and but &aencs that similar
made similar statements to what NJ mas .eS,ne1 h ~
with design to misrcpresent IN consequence Of his iea
on 20 the party or TO the case IN which case sy b Se
fore the relation existed.
Now Sir this is the language OF the elementary writer's
but the language Of the courts is equally as consistent
and conclusive In The People ag vanc reported IN IL
Wendell this point adudicated was decided-namey'
where tho testimony of accomplce had been I'M
,earhed by the suggestion that he inspired by
hone OF pardon and immunity that It competent 10
relieve his evidence the suspicion by proving ha'
on previous occasions antecedent 70 the u"e WIZ,
this inspiration of hope operated upon him. ne nao u
consistent statements out Of court. That Sir Is auu
Gated and it is the only point audioated in the case Oh
The People ag vane opinion of the Court peihg pro
pounded by Chief Justice Savage with the concurrence
OF his learned and gshed associates But as even
able Judges sometimes not content TO STAND upon the
mere point adudcated. that learned urst proceeded
to travel beyond the record and to propouhd eA-
trs.iudcial dicta which subsequently have fallen
under the revision and correction Of the courtsto W.T.
no enunciated the broad. absolute proposition that
whenever the credibty OF witness is mpeached either
on direct Examination or Otherwise tat 'nen
1t is competent maintain his credbity by PROOF OF MS
consistent declarations Of court But this was oo'r
not necessary to decision of the case not presented
by the upon the record not involved IN the oec
miuation of the point presented These dctd, say
have subsequently fallen under the criticism ana con-
domination Of the courts but mark your Honor that III
the very which have reviewed and revised ana re-
ected authority Of these ded-n those very cases
and in the very act repudatng and exploding those
ieg these subsequent recognize and reafrm and
ratify the exception and the qualification and the doc
true upon which stand Thus in % Wendell we dnd
the case of Robb agt Hackey quoted at page Do ana
your Honor must indulge me II read somewhat exten
svey the opinion here propounded by one OF tne
aest ursts adorned the bench Of this satel
mean MI. Justice Bronson:
When witness s contradctcd his testimony may, OF
course verified by proving the same facts by Others
LIS ~ good or II evidence is given that the Wit
made declarations out of court Win
made under such circumstances as not 70 detraG
fro from his INT n an that s testimony s IS
under the influence of some motive prompting him 10
% ao% S to o% ns made
similar declarations at times Ylen lle (mPuteu tolg
d not Exist Bpt s be Witness s has sd out OF court
cannot he received 10 verify his stimony III violates
and that is the objection by learned gentleman
side be affected either in his person or
oath Besides it be confirmation of what the
witness has show that he has made similar
declarations When under no such solemn obligations to
speak the truth 1t is answer 10 say that such evil
deuce will not be likely TO gain credit and, consequently
will do no harm Evidence should be given 10
ury when they at liberty not to believe it, The ref
learned Chef-Justcc in The People ag vane, but that
case necessarily go beyond deciding that the
Moderated by showing that when first arrested he gave
flef al Vhp factt hat
as witness for the people, gave rise to the me
enGsn 4a the he purpose exe%ps
himself from prosecution for the larceny might there
,Re matter at time When there was no such motive for
making false accusation II when first arrested, and
had frankly disclosed the whole matter that might tend
mcnt oath This brings the case within me aeSno't
edged exception the general rule that the testimony OF
a cOntradcted impeached OF disoredted witness cannot
be confirmed by proving that he has made similar decar
st0ns out OF court.
The Acknowledged exception TO the general rule" says
Mr. The headnoe to the case Is this
Proof of declarations made by witness out Of court in
Of the case is general and almost universal rule in
admissible. IL seems howeper that to this r1iie there are
exceptions and that under special circumstances such
proof will be received AS, where ne witnesS charged
NTH giriaJ his testimony under the influence OF some mo
tire prompting him 10 make false or cOi9cd statements
may be shown that he made similar declarations at
time when the imputed motive did not exist So IN con
tradction evidence tending to show that the account
of the transaction given by the witness is fabrication
given by him before its ultimate effect and operation
arising from change of circumstances, could have been
forcsCcn.
If your Honor please, this is the language OF Mi
Phillips (mar sinal page 974l:
In ono point OF view. however former statement by
the witness appears to he admissible Information OF MS
evidence end where the counsel on the other side
mpue design to misrcpresent from some mouve OF III
terest or relationship In that perhaps in order to
pc such an imputation il might be proper to show That
the witness made tho same statement at time when the
supposed motive did not exist or when motives OF inter
make Ulutrent STATE
mcnt of the facts
And in the of Smith agt stickney, reported in IL
Barbour page 1879, Mr. Justice Welles delivering the
opinion Court recapituates the authorities Tor at
least so many OF them then exant) which have
sdduced recognizes and rearms them, and then adds
We perceive nothing in the present case to bring II
within the exception the general rule recognizing
the exception atfying the principle rcafrmns the doc
trine which contend, and by virtue OF which
we maintain the admissibity of this evidence.
SO In "Parker's Criminal Reports" page 147, we
find in the case OF Tho People ag Finngan" this Ian
guage:
"As general rule tsays the hoadnOesl not compc
tent support of the testimony Of witness, for the
party calling him to prove that he has made declarations
And "The exceptions 10 the rule as now
seems'~.n nav, it isJ-the exceptions to the rule as
now established in this State are, when the witness
some motive prompting lin to make false or eoored
statement may be shown that he made similar declare
tons at imputed motive did not exist;
or when is evidence In contradiction tending to
show that the account OF me m gwen " s
be shown that the same account was gwen by hn before
It's effect operation, arising from chanSe VI
circumstances, could have been perceived"
Now Sir conld adduce other authorities both from
the elementary writers and from the reports but 1t were
lido detan the court with their recital Suffice 1t TO
say the unanimous, of authors and
Judges support Of the doctriue which enuncate
and that to the contrary of it, not solitary dogma is to