New-York tribune., 1875-02-17
a ". Al. to show the manner in which she did t. and that


tabIishment OF truth, which should exclude It.
Mr. Evarts-I have offered evidence whatever "a 10 any
thing that passed between Mrs Tton and her mother or Mrs
Tton and this witness There my learned frend mistake
II had drawn from this witness piece OF evidence lhA1 ms
wife did maintain to her mother In his presence her
then my friend would be within rule that cou show
the particular facts that occurred having drawn out ne ac
Of this maintenance by the wife TO her mother
Mr. Beach-That s the very fact you did draw out
Mr. Rvarts-I did not draw 1t OUT | haven't said word
about have asked this witness whether he said so aLd
nothing o-e.
Judge Nelsoa-Perhap the counsel considers drawing the
facts out
Beach-t proving the fact by the declaration OF the
party.
Eya-I do prove the fact in the least II may have
been entire ehood consistently with any question
have asked any have got any use to be made
any got appealed to FOR my belief
whether il were true or not
Judge Neilson-You would not say
Mr. Evars-I should say under your HonOrs admonon
that should not laughter
Mr. Beach, understand Mr.. Evars proposition to be that
when proves by declaration Of party certain fact that
he does not produce II in evidence
Judge Neilson--Does not draw it out
Mr.. Beach-Yes, Sir.
Eyars-My learned friend cannot msunders;and me, it
would to me- Certainly able TO understand the d-
my asking this witness did your wife man-
mother nnocence and his answer that she did
giving right then pursue ihe tenor Of the conversation on
a redirect had drawn WhenT have asked any such
question: when have sought such evidence when have
any such evidence it will be time then 10 apply the proposition
that having dawn the Of conversation by ny n
qury concerning conversation they draw out the par
ticulars correct the tenor
Judge Nelson-But is there asubstana difference between
the before u.s. where you draw it in this form
Mr.. Eyarts-I did not draw II
Judge Neilson-You have il in the answer
Mr. Evarts-I haven't it in the
Judge Neilson-But the answer says
MI. Eyarts-I haven't it in the answer.
Judge Neilson-Ilead the answer, please.
Mr. Eyas-I have nothing but that he said
1t drawing ALL your Honor please. The only
thing that draw out is that this witness has made statement
concerning his wife's innocence.
Judge Nelson The statement; not statement but the state
which you read 10 him.
Mr. Eyars-Well, a statement I asked him II he did not
make that statement.
Judge Neilson-That statement.
Mr. Eyarts-e has made it, Included in that statement is
a recit OF his own his wife had done aud That
doh prove that she had done and by anything that had
asked
Judge Neson-The question whether you did draw
in that form.
Mr. Ryars-Am perfect liberty contend that there
word Of truth in what ne said-not word OF truth
Judge Neison-U Undoubtedly.
Mr. Eyaris-May that be the whole point OF my inquiry
that he told something that was untrue.
Judge NesonWhen you make an inquiry that calls out tie
fact that he did state the Committee did
body his wife had always in her mothers presence,
maintained her innocence not that the thing suban
tally you had asked hin in another form, and getting sub
staHtially the answer.
Mr. Eyarts-I think not II your Houor please, in the least
and think the cases do distinguish think the necessary
Of the matter s lido not undertake TO examine this wit
ness as passed his wes mother and her
do undertake prove the truhfunes Of anything that s
contained in that Of his lie has given certain line Of
testimony here bearing upon the question Of whether his wife
is or not guilty adultery say Have you said
and 20 ?" Now he admits it, the De
In this he admits IL understand II ne had denied IT,
why hen my only point would be 70 prove not that his wife
had -ad her mOher-I would not have been al
lowed to do that contradict him. and all would be permit
ted to prove was what he had said on the subject
and then could confirm, emphasize the weight Of
proof concerning what he had said by proving the truth
funess Of what he had said. That understand,
your Honor please be entire dstnconto be the clear
distinction undertaking 10 give evidence concerning
and undertaking give evidence that witness has sad
so 80 Now believe nothing better settled in the law
evidence than that this inquiry into the truth or the fact Of
statement concerning which alone the witness has
been called give testimony Is well settled
Judge Nelson-I think that il settled.
M Evarts-Now coansel hands q in Massachu-
setts. .Readug
witness having testified to negotiations for exchange Of
horses witness called to prove that the former
witness had previously given very different account Of
ness recalled and explained that the circumstances
testified by the second witness were those another exchange
on a different occasion Hsd that competent TO
hin proof that the other exchange thus referred
TO actually took pace.
Well you could not confirm by himself any than by
any other witness.
Where witness denies that he stated fact another wit
ness has estlde that he did eses that he stated df
fent fact evidence that the fact existed which he tesnes a
he stated srnadmlssible 70 corroboH'e him.
And all turning upon point that the only inquiry being,
not what was true what did place but what did
say the end Of the inquiry and that neither on one
side or The other the fact be inquired into.
Judge NesOn-The remote not only geographi-
cay from the very question in issue here The
queslon You have before you in the printed book the
question which the witness and his answer before the
Committee. You cannot be taken by surprise Having words
before YOU you nerrocate him Was this question put you
and did you here stated reading the and
he admits he did and in that this statement That
always maintained her innocence in presence 10 her
And the simple question whether the witness
you having introduced the subject in that formwhether the
witness how in what manner she maintained her
innocence mother proving that what he did
rue or conradcng what he said but simply following out
the line further the in which he stated what
have proved stated.
Mr. Eyars-Bu the whole point II your Honor please
the line your Honor indicates the whole line as 10 what he
said TO the Committee and nothing else he and
explained 70 Committee how it that she maintained be-
fore her mother and reduced qualified what he had
stated then would be admitted part OF the qualification
gave but he did not give to the Committee forms
no proper qualification Of his statement to the Committee
Judge Nelson-It part Of
sation.
Mr. Eyars-No at all and therefore within the
inquiry what witness has said does not admit
evidence pro Is the truth of what he said
Mr. Fullerton-The inquiry is as to what party has said
Mr. BeaehThe counsel overiooks entirely the distinction
which is to be taken between Q dsnterested witness
sworn in q cause and q party produced in the
The effect Of this declaration, which they have