The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-30

III tulS uloIc uescTNluH VI BOou hc W
not an enemy OF MIR. Beecher. Probably. called to
Mr.. Beecher's side, he would have been very
faithful coaborer Pryor, however. has the
Southern affection and has become mbued with
| his clients cause. No fee that could be paid at
the present stage OF the trial would move him.
He has been the scholar OF his side OF the case
man OF large ana varied reading, Observant fresh,
earnest bold he has entered into this case by In
vitatlon. He was selected by Judge Norris, who
had watched him and had ascertained that the
Pryor or ante-bellum times was quite q different
superstition from the cool, DESTROYS and business
character now resident In or near the metropolis.
Nothing could be more irrelevant than the man
ner OF she three lawyers-Pryor, Beach and
Evarts
Mr.. Pryor has not forgotten any material por-
ton OF the habits and manners OF his latitude
and extraction. Fervid, decisive, copious, indtg-
nant he pas the elements which make success
He Is man and student. During this trial his
polse, membership, careful regulation OF his clients
case and generous thought as to the points he had
to defend as well as those he had to advance have
nearly made him great practitioner. Nothing IL
reduced by Mr.. Pryor's success in New York.
MIR. Beach, Pryor's colleague, Is very perfect
type OF the Northern barrister. He is surrendered
to his profession. At the Bar criticism Is TO be
made upon HIM. He can be belligerent and almost
terrible, and again suaveas commercial partner
In this case he has won for himself q
very high distinction. His devotion and his
urbanity have been equal; the common belief Is
that with his great fame, he has worked without
o fee-not necessarily because his convictions are
very decided, but because in an affair at law he
stands like Horatlo to Hamlet, .bone to bone,
sinew 10 sinew." The style OF Mr.. Beach Is COM
pact powerful, grave, positive. He has very little
ornament, but ia not lacking in suggestiveness.
a mr. a n v
mediate resources OF plain ana cogent illustra.
ton. These illustrations are seldom norid; hey
are commonplace. Among lawyers he Is what
Burns was among POETS His antagonsm to the
press. real or assumed. has OF itself suggestive
ness which honest writers will consider according
to Its proprety IN each instance.
Mr.. Evarts is renowned over the, country. He Is
a little man, lean from the feet to the crown.
Nature has compressed into his counteuance all
the faculties most OF the senslbilities and little
OF it's caricature. He is said to be DESTROYS to be
an editor. That Is reasonable, because his arRu.
ments are generally edltOralzing. II you put
forty objects on the plain surface Of table and
ask Evarts to connect them all In one sentence he
can do 1t. No man has more fecundlty. aplOmb.
assumption, pausibity He has MS features as
well as his thoughts In rein, and can drive them
magnlhcently even upon the Judge. The Judge In
this trial, unfortunately, seems TO be Indifferent
about the lawyers, and 1 Il you would orna up the
nal medium whatever, Nelson would take MS own
course. We, therefore, pass the long arguments
OF yesterday down to the public for what they are
worth.
The jury took their seats shortly before eleven
A. NJ. and, when Court was opened, Judge Neil
son stated that, finding the pamphlet spoken OF
ne wspaper, out by IN Independent party. he wrote
TO them and cautioned them against prelacing
each DAYS proceedings with Objectionable COM
IN Int n a "a 10 mol a
scriptious In the papers Of Witnesses was highly
improper. and that he should not, on his own
MIR. Pryor then continued his argument as fol-
lows:-H Your Honor please, at the adjournment
the antecedent and Independent competency or
the piaintif 10 be witness IN his own 0enalf had
been impaired or affected -competency, you WI!
remember, conferred by the act Of 1857-had
been impaired or affected by the act or
the 10th OF May, 1857, and IT was entirely obvious
tite Of the act 1867, by reference TO Its text BIZ
consideration OF It's pervading and prevailing I'M
port, It was demOnstrarively obvious that there
was no clash collision between the act OF 1851
and the act OF 1867; that, on the contrary, they
covered inherent subject matter contemplated
dirierent ends and accomplished oIife rem and dis
similar OF Jects. Now, then, 1t Is familiar maxim
OF the law that former statute Is not repealed by
TWO are rreconcllably Incompatible, and that II
the Two may stand together the TWO snail stand,
aud fun effect and operation be gwen to each.
so, then II resulted logically and legally that the
competency to DC witness In his own oehah, con-
Il
not affected or dlsparagcd by the subsequent act
OF 1867. Nevertheless. the research OF the learned
gentleman on the other SIDE has discovered aud
produced decision-their research has produced
a case III the New York Supreme Court Reports,
disquallfes the patntn from being witness In
his own behalf
The Judge-You refer to Judge Smiths decision.
Mr.. PryOr-Yes sir that is the case. IL Is not the
decision OF superior tribunal, out IS tue decision
OF the General Term OF another county OF only CO.
the Judge-i mention In respect to the decisions
OF other courts other than tue Court OF Appeals III
this state, we accept them with respect and as
lar as we think they are SCUM adopt them and
| In like Decree though In less degree, we accept
the decisions OF tue states 81 New England; And
soning they may he or may not be subjective to
our judgment III the premises.
the fact which you nave stated, the criticism OF
The decisions OF other courts was based upon their
conformity 10 reason, ana was about proceeding
to exhibit, conclusively and deierentIally and
with all respect tor the learned Court by whom the
decision was promulgated, That this decision ID
absolutely repugnant 10 reason, and mas no shadow
OF foundation In ne decision upon which II pur-
ports to be established. Ny learned friend, using
aplncd that tnis case mad been argued by the pro-
IessiOn with research and vigilance. But the re-
SION Of the opinion OF the Judge himself, as you
vii! observe Is embodied In this brief para
Hess 10 prove such marriage" TIE act Of 1881. to
enable husband and vile to be Witnesses Tor or
Where se Of he aaSe Inc
ana wife Is In controversy, except TO prove tAe
FORMER marriage. andin
CASES OF THE BIGAMY
OF the husband ami wife, or In cases OF divorces
and thus you perceive that the learned Judge
arrives Mt the CONCLUSION by no process OF reason
ing, nor Is ne sustained In the conclusion by any
CT alton OF authority. But he merely urges 1t per
s0ltum. The result Is apparently upon this dec.
an action OF adultery from being witness. But,
SIR the OF 1867 accompIishes no such thing; the
decisiOn therefore, Is founded upon the plain, pal
pabie misleading and msconstructlon oil the very
act upon winch IT purports TO be founded. Bear
IN mind now, the words OF The Judge that
this second section OF the act or 1867 for.
DDS the parties IN an action involving
question OF adultery from being Witnesses
That Is to say from being witnesses abso-
lutely and unqualihediy. he announces the propo
| sti0n in general terms, without reconstructlon
| or mod dcativn; whereas what are the terms Of
/ the actf Nothing herein contained snail render
! any husband or wife competent or compcable TO
give evidence for or against the other incompe-
tent and incompellable merely to give evidence
out competent TO give evidence for or against the