New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-11

In several other cases II came under review In tho csss
OF Robb agt Haokey. in % Wendell. Now. in dealing
with the OF IL Wendell The People agt VAne tho
learned Judge made use Of these observations;
idenee by tbs language Of the chief ustics in Th.
People agt vane, ~ Wendell 7s but that case does no,
when first arrested he gave the relation Of the facts
Shs 6 Ss thst n'n as sn
pose Of hmsc from rom FOR The
the Pc s s lST
m ws r. s s ST ass .s
personal exempon he had frankly disclosed the wholo
sentation Of the same statement on oath FIds brings
the within the Acknowledged exception ~ the gen
eral rule that the testimony Of oontradoted msesed
that be has made similar declarations out Of court
Now Sir am not right saying that the case IN Tho
People ag vane sustained and approved by tbis casa
OF 90 Wendell far may be regarded a. decision
Of the in question: or which came up for review IN
that casef II nowhere reversed And then again ha
says on page 81:
Mr. Evans in his valuable notes 10 Pothicr after
on former occasions confirm his statements in court
says ordinary the evidence would be at least s
arded as there Is ae
reason y Sep rsposd s By
ing that Inc motifs upon which it rs supposed
have been fSgnsd sss r not sss ,a ssa
and which therofore repeii6d the superstition fact
reiated being an afterthought or fabrication He adaa
If witness speaks to facts living the existence OF
contract and nsinuations are thrown out tnat DO nS
ses " % pS On or w ans os ns
OF circumstances has excited an nducement TO roced
from deliberate engagemeht s, pio ca,n va.
given Shen he contract alleged had erery prospect Of al
cos,e and the testimony is placed upon
the level which IL would have had ~ the mouve io
receding from the previous intention had never na1
existence.
There the exception to the general rule is stated and
the case in which evidence such We propose to svo
considered proper.
refer your Honor also again to tho case OF II bar
bour, where the opinion is delivered by Justice Wells
The head-n0te Is this
Where the witness Is impeached by proof that ne hss
made on other occasions e WIN, an
cannot be received to fortify his testimony.
Now read from the opinion in this for the pur
pose OF showing what light Judge Wells regarded IL
decision People agt vane, aud the Of Robb
agt Hacklcy, to which last referred. The learned
Judge says:
The witness was inquired Of whether he had mads
statements indiyua mentioned to tho effect
that he and the plaintiff had taken the Job of saving
together and had performed the labor jointly In such
arrangement with the plaintiff which he either de-
MED stated he did not recoleet OF making them Tn.
was competent to contradict the witness. The defend
ant accordingly called number OF the ndiyd a., re-
and testified that he had made statements the i'm
of which that the Saving III question was
under general undertaking by the said John smith
and the plaintiff Wtha view OF restoring the credit or
the witness which claimed was thus impaired tbs
plaintiff offered to prove that he had previously when
not under OATH made declarations consistent with his
This was objected to by the Defendants counsel aud tho
objection overuled by the Referee and the evidence
offered was received.
Now, OF course, that was error:
Tn this we think the Referee has erred. Mr.. Green
leaf in his treatise on Evidence. states the rule as io
lows: where evidence or contradictory statenehs
other particular facts, offered Dy
mpeaehing his yeracty his general character Tor truth
reasonable to admit evidence that he is man Of strict
integrity and scrpulous regard for truth But evidence
what he has testified to in the case is not admissible
where design to % Rs 70 n s
or 10 the cause, which it that IL may be
the relation existed"
There the learned Judge recognizes this exception to
the general rule.
30 much of rule here stated allows general ev
tory of the witness, other particular faots
by way OF mpeachng his veracy has not been followed
Then he quotes the People agt. Hulse in the Sd Hill
and other authorities:
But. in relation TO the residue. and which has all that
applies to the question under consideration. believe II
may b. regarded the settled law 1t is substantially
laid down by Mr. .Starkie
Then he quotes the authorities already referred TO-
(Readng i
In Robb agt Hackley % Wendell So Bronson. Justice.
says: general and almost universal rule. evidences
c waat Sry M eVss 0 We nothing
in the present case to bring within the exception TO tho
general rule The witness has sustained but one relation
to the party In tho and that relation has at no
time been changed"
Now, ask your Honor whether not the relation Of
Mrs. MOulton this question and the parties ~ this
case changedi Is 1t to-day what was in
June 1921 The counsel upon the other side does not
the by saying that she is the wife OF her hus
band now and the wife Of her husband then, and
therefore the relation exists We do not Use tho
term relation" in such limited that Rea-
ton" there synonym Of attitude" What Is the atti
tde or you please, the relation Of Mrs. Moulton now
compared with what 1t was then' Then her
husband was the best friend that God ever
raised up for Henry Ward Beecher, and he re-
peated it over and again in his correspondence.
He was putting forth every exeron spending his time
and money exerting his influence to conceal aud pre-
vent this scandal and to keep beneath the surface aud
his wife cooperating with him. They all were of
mind they all had but object to accomplish. and
their united efforts directed to the accomplishment
Of that object Well, your Honor knows perfectly well
what occurred in 1874. Then Mr. Becehcr discovered
that for the purpose saving himself he must sacrifice
this God given friend and he turned upon him and tried
to say HIM Instead Of attitude OF close, intimate
friendship there to be attitude OF personal hos
tility Mr. Beecher that time induced believe.
with the aid OF two lawyers that Mr. Mouton had levied
blackmaiI upon him, and he denounced from
one end OF the universe almost to the other. black
mailer WELL as a matter Of Mrs. MoutOn sym
pathized with her husband and stood by him and her
feelings toward Mr.. Beecher underwent change and
her attitude to-day when she upon the stand
different from what 1t in 1873. ngh Is from dark
ness ne ed not pursue that subject any further. They
say that 1874 after this breach between Mr. Beccher
and Mr. Mouon occurred after they assumed attitudes
OF hostility and making statements and counter
statements that then this story concoced by Mr..
Mouon and forced upon his wife. and that she has told
,,A hall fh.sI