New-York tribune., 1875-02-02

comprehension u c.nYcfst1n, iA'i eAt,'a .'4'.iy
transacons and The impossby of recoectng me pre-
terms used by the party. Or of tran-aug mem ~ eas
aients We HaSr coacule there no substantial i et lyC.
fhls ci.s of testimony TIE fact too tn u te t1a ga o.
omen questions of fact both sides largely supported Dy oN
dcnce Of this character m ne majority oi ~ Hn ~,
All ut Ous crs OF fct- greatly 20 di-tfasi H- felaJ'
sqy when thai Kind 4 C. ce.cc 4. t .O lc ruo---acc
for written letter ~ itt e' @ -'' - tD"- 'A- ~
shall know what they talked -ac ii 1a "-ii "@' si'' =" y
n, destuc.on Of .at p4pe. ui - o, o motive ana tA'
o1portpuy Of keeping alive 's scandal 20 th. -ac Tha
1.er ufolsced v...l shog l-..y H.t H-s ..4 -.a 30
po.ed Is The subc. Of accI-L}. 4lI 0i ntf'o I"-
qape- In tic origin. p. f. -d a BE hsi. " MONROE
and hs pledge aud prom 'o yr Erceer "d- '-' Ae ~'
keep hat paper with te paper t.t NJ '''i,'
him. which Wa IT, reirlc .or Aa ,hc to should I"i 10
separated aud -logG be precisely Whenever any %
porunity was raised for scandal the car "a- and "ai
Tie retrlciion ant lI.t trust a-amad, upon "h'h M
eccher delivered Mr. Ao1-ol e reu.cion for -fe b. y
ing thai pledge violated Dy tc sepa .'u of ie %
the destruction Of the hy ST. I.t.n anG h wife VOW
the COPY he Eas destroyed. Naa j. The re NJ N m r
10 persons who seek adG.ce tis unsatisfactory evidence
which cautious tcr Of ias p.y hide attention TO- DO i-
place Of what all oi desire 20 have here a. ,he very @rer
proDos.ton thar wa considered H. the " Blc Nolan
y Werd giving the decision;
"1 that proof tat a,t1 de. oeaiey and yo.unta' ?,
br5nght would not aulo-a thc Introduction Of nfrpr -
secondary evidence AND i tla. 'r .ie $50 .'- =, '.
evidence canuo, De c1cu.er ~ oo ~. ,'-e "' , l
wl- lost or destroyed 'f Hre. ni-''h, f .H.
Oh n
oInayl and the Court add. "Js A"o" " 70" of fi',-
fr whth Ddft Ur..l 4"y Etf (, NJ H'..i s'.'ty'
,. ,l ,Tt rsil, one, From the necessity and usr1-a ~
Tie caa the courts have allowed he party to 0e Cd mr'
an unrca-onahie intl-sc3c ..l' \. .3.''. o M -, rom,
r.a- shall tlan ad 'fr' OF iI- p-h " i''"'
t1. testimony where he has Ge--recly destroyed D.
IT, then the o1lierlou Of this direct proof was tc -e'
plr-e of the witness VINO n10 appear. 90 ife t content,
lt enough Other peoples iLtere- are l1t io ' placed "
worse position when the motives upon which Do destroyed '
accurate evidence cpac-d hy motives fos rpro-cn2 "
oder effect IL the clse " R.An,r BllA " Columbia
Wheat. 81,
.TAe Cour, Thola-on J.. say-: 'Tl. rl'. ~ cyderc.
must BE- 20 applied, - .u .v .e -c eat- aaa @
a.lin-r fraud or imposition u li. cf'il.- -.
,yc. grounded be ta-. the on-Ha l-s.t - i',A Wy
4c.i u. u1 secondary evidence o--l. io ', -ii...D.
IN thc case Of EroadWe st.e-. !l.. \ J " li ap
u.a.G that tic T.a.lG i...'i laG D1t.- a -t 'l4''
meu oua note ihat t.c Handwriting cad not .e laa
o. ald be 10 tle TRIAL o1os,d prove by v1c in-t no
e-.a SIGNATURE vas 10, ,le genuine --..r. w-.l Nl
PERMITTED. Tile elo-are v4- voluntary aid rot by -'.1'.
or mistake Il Vas LOT pretended .l., Is "-s " -e-. 80
V1s voluntary.
Tie Coan say " lie uto voluntarily. vi loat accident n
-h, ,,rodrrr ANA ms, ol secondary ryd.tcc T beet
deuce required. ana i brf4 h1' 0 r'" t' b i "
nav b, -.on Co. acc3,n, or uf..!le l4s t.l ei .r.r
ton cyc..es suspicion and nl.a''i-ale p''-Uii' .''
mint 10 pJ7ao, 10. o .,L pa'.J --e -oee-A 10 ".-"t ~
Consider before you pl-lo-.. destroy an A-..a.n' "l '
9r no Won wish 90 p-aer,, .. c1r'..- ..ire TIE
here was ou the motive %, -ulre-rc 'he o0n-. a'i "
having the paper known. Now, when .ts Interests ~ DlI
pare. reqrr. la u tie paper .s produced .a a"t i'
shall be produced r i.- M shape '' carnot h" - ..'t '
Tie act " tie witness L.u-gN t-t l-
hi. oral memory for tlc written I--rr el' D-.'f H t.
da..-.c,.5f The Court sag ta .9 t.4 .- o i
cislc AZ % deny party .i. H 0i t., "..-
his adversary. Ll2ALL. '. Aip. Dec. t.. a. . ...
,te rt,, admit as secondary evidence - stated.
"lf tic Iar,I- b, II...- F Destroyed
secondary evidence because t' o. 10 .'+f "
,.iHl. a-nt. bn.s t t.lr t.. O. 'l...' ... -'' --
Now tter. vas ..a.. e-. before .h. ss.-a, '.r' '
Massachusetts known IT, tue count J...'. '. 'f |
len Mas. Io.. Count J..-Du.- i.rsa --...r t. --
u q woman. Aer parent. v.r. r l.f t,-ltl .. .'
would ac.rp, A.m. and io.ar.a -.'.I.-... t '.'
who bad formerly been t., pastor , t. t-... " .r. .'
le'c I'd ,suad.ue Ler f-. Pc. .-.. b. l.. '. .i
terfrom bis intended "a .s i.. tLe H.. ..' .e .
buraed , and Gid uo, alk. COPY. lie -,iH,.- -.'- .
writer for libel Hlt tiat 30 w.- error "a. allow . B.
to its contents without list r.ol,au- .le i.. r
him arising IT, destruction # does not APPEAR ..li ..
ground for the objection '3 tlc ol c' 'c,.ce "a .- i
Tie trial. Tho Court --g '.i-
IVA. a violation ef '.. card. -.l r-ino1c lra. MN .
Eqte ia.u aqeal.t t, a.t.t 4 -..-e ,--... i.e-.f
uu.srcra1.c tl ni- O.a.ui- .aarl ID.
. .
any f4cr. The u.e u -l.-. .-u .... la.f i..
Oh, .lu .u. only .o avoid g.. -lo4,l .. . ....
accident 0r m.-..,c ..s.if.., ,ne aI..,., ..l....
Sow. o.. g...a..- ol I.- .t - "-. ..''
d.c..ou. This interview ..I- .,l- tl-.- HL-. HA t-i
paper. That What t.i- N.l.-- t.e.l ..'.t, t..
what 81. D,gc.,r t..ara t...- f -. f,. .l . i-,
the s.3 cc,. tAc ut,1.-, .a4 e4ap.- Boz sd,e ID 20.
that tls communication -..l- Je .-c .- " 49,. i. is .-
wines, y.c'. N.a. .l- i-'., aa-...... 'l H - -'"
only desire R4- ..lt ,.-, i-f.l. "--- '..-'i '-. 81.
,ut .ect ofcou i.l.. Y.'Atea .. 4.. ... .- le "at
asked 20 give lp t4e r,,.on oi tl1t ii.. t" 1859 p.er
should 10, Dee separated. aal A- -.,.-4 ..s o"n.
or Il De gave % up Ae A..c A..0 ,uA. ur
paper % which r applied ~a- kp ID a.e same
condition also ior esl.uc. NoN, whichever ST. .'-er -
shown l- p4y . tlc destruction " either ,. , y.g.r-,
n. o., enough ~ -.---, .l. -.s .-.- - .--'''I
upon i- 20 bee lu,. d.
Nj Titou-Wi your Honor have --c A--n'. - -ior- i'
whether b name ,., circumstances:
M G.acA-W4.t oa. moment, M IA.0a.
Mr E,a-t--TAere at.y prominent case "i .--4l o.
FlrI % Ncw Hampshire. whore 10 Nas 4.i- .t Hh,..a
grantee Cancelled decd ah thc intent o ro'c. t.D t i
the deed del cred recorded hl Il would nai 4-Yc u
elect directly get the destruction being voluntary r D'd up
1--WE in evidence and 20 indirectly should wofA iAc conc
queuce Intended
Judge Nc..ou-Tlc deed mast have been delivered 10 a-
case
SIR Eyart--Yes. but probably not recorded
Nj BeacA-Ih. Gaze lsj rI By te learned ,Uln- uH H.
illustrates The proposition which intended o su you
Honor that al read by tAe c1.no apHy 10 cx
ampcs where the Instrument in quo oa "a- ln ~ue degree
the foundation Of tie action. direct and Eigr - evidence
in it-eIf OF the ac lon. Now, t4s plper Ss which w.
offer 10 prove the contents ~, vas aA .ncdehi4.
Circumstance IN the u the inere" between c parties
10 this action Tic counsel falsely assume, 'a.t u w4s
the foundation Of -uc 10 may have o.ci ~ l-sl
ton of tina. interview, but t b. AIS , essential
suDirc matter of communication which u,A f ed Dee
tween these pare- Had not paper 0eca !Acd and
read rom had Mr. T.1u upon that ol sta from roe
objection and by parole as Ae d.. st-', % Ar
Beecher the contents q t.4t instrument nobody