New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-29

Oyngton on her previous crossexaminaton m noary W
she could state them. and with very rcmarkaDe "cc"'
racy certainly being from memory, and we now oher
the original note itself in order to make 1t complete IL
was ont by our learned friends on the other sne
Mrs Oyingon did not then have any opportunity 70 20
| and find the paper
| Judge Neilson-n was brought ont on conversation
| with Mr. Tllton therefore you may bring 1t III.
Mr. Fullerton-Thc note not brought out In the
conversation with HIM.
Judge NeilsOn-Thc contents.
Mr. FullcrtOn-Mrs OvingOn stated here IN her eN'-
dence what she said to Mr. Tilton which embraced ''
note as she then remembered it,
Judge Ncilson-I think the question IL wheuer 'n''
don't open the door for the note now.
Mr. Fullerton-That is their evidence Certainly IL
would not open the door to admit tho letter ITSELF De
cause Mr. Tilton replied to Mrs. Ovington upon the
strength Of Mrs Oyngtons recollection Of the note at
tho time.
Judge Neilson-Not il they opened tiff 1t was new
matter by them.
Mr. Fullerton-It il matter by them, Sir not by u.s.
Mr. Eyarts-The point take it, is this If your Honor
please; IL we had then had the note VIC should nave
offered It being tho note which Mrs OyiigOh cOilhiu'
ncatod Mr. Ton, but the paper not being ut hand or
not being supposed to DO in existence for the moment
abe stated that she gave the OF the letter Her
principal recollection that she the contents OF
letter which then had and then the letter being miss
ing, when the rules OF proof would nave rc-
dured the paper to DO produced as beng
the best evidence Of its contents, SAC swearing
that she communicated the contents that displaced
and had to take lieu OF it, the best to be got the
secondary evidence of what the contents were Now the
proof puts us-the examination puts us In the same posi-
tion submit your Honor in regard to TINS paper
that we should have il the witness at the time
had it In her hand and said. communicated tho con-
tents Of this note" and then we should read it,
Judge Neilson-The contents were only before u.s. or
proper TO DO brought before because this witness
stated the contents in her conversation with Mr. Tlton
that is all.
Dir. FuertOn-Ycs, Sir.
Mr. Eyarts-That agree but still the recollection Is
stated the contents" and now we are put in the sec
ondary FORM to remembrance of what the contents
were.
Mr. Fuerton-She gave the contents.
Mr.. Eyarts-Iknow, but 1t was from her memory
Judge Neilson-Itis not material what the contents
were tho question having been what she told MT Itoh
tho contents were and about that there Is no dispute
Mr. Evarts-N0 think not; that is that is my point
if your Honor please, and will be very brief about It,
understand the state OF the thing TO be this that the
witnesses recollection is that she stated to Mr.. Tllton the
contents OF the note whatever those contents WERE IL
the note had been here then should have had right
read the note because that speaks for its contents and
she has she communicated the contents but the
note not being here then had TO prove what she bad
communicated by her memory OF the contents instead
| of the written contents That is my proposition.
Judge NeilsOn-Supp0se, Mr. Eyarts you now have the
letter before you and you find in it some matter which
Mrs Ovington did not state to Mr. Titon in the CONVEX
saton with him; it clearly ought not to DO admitted.
Mr. FullerOn-That Is just the reason why they want
| to prove IT, Sir.
Mr. Evarts-That will be brought out if it be so, but
that not the state OF the proofs upon which am pro-
posing the question Of law to your oaor The state Of
| If ia
this lady stated the contents OF the note That would
have authorized us read the being the evidence
OF its contents
| Judge Neson-So far she had stated il.
| Mr. Evarts-wel, she says she stated the contents.
Judge Nclson-Wel, suppose part of it she did not
| state.
Mr. Evarts-wel, the way the impcrfection arises is
that not having the note she is obliged
\ DRY for what the contents were.
Judge Neson-Thc primary duty OF the witness, then
was not 40 much to state the contents OF the note as to
state what she told Mr. Tton That was the vital thing
embracing the contents OF the note 50 far as she emem
| bcred it.
Mr. Fullerton-Mr Tilton's reply to that communca
ton was predicated OF what Mrs Ovington stated t,
| him in regard to the contents of the note.
judge NcisOn-Perhaps, If the note itself had been be
| fore him, his conversation might have been different
| Mr. Fullert0n-Mrs. Ovngton undoubtedly gave The
contents Of that note she recoeced it, Now, if she
omitted TO state anything, then Mr. TOn is not TO be
| concluded by what lie stated to Mrs Ovington.
| Judge NesOn-In that he had not the Opportu
| nifty to reply.
The Witness-f yOur Honor please stated the note t.
Mr. Tilton time OF receiving it. recalled it here
| some months afterward.
Mr.. ENTHUSIASTICALLY
| The Witness-Perhaps my memory was better then
| Judge Nelson ITO the witness You were examined
with reference to your conversation with Mr.. TiltOn
| and you stated truly. according to your best reco
| lection. all that you told Mr.. Titonf
| The Witness-Yes Sir.
Judge Neison-That embraced the contents OF the let
| ter. which, according to your memory, you had com
| municated to him
| The Witness-Yes Sir.
Judge Nelson Ito the COUNSEL Now suppose that
Mrs Ovngton did not state the contents OF the letter.
! she then rec0llected.
| Mr. Evarts-That agree, but she did not recollect
| it in full.
Mr. Fullcrton-That we don't know, but you certainly
will hold Mr. TltOn responsible for the contents Of
| letter which was not stated to him.
Mr.. Evars-Now If your Honor please, let me call at
| tcnton to a ruling in this Reading.
The plaintiffs witness having testified that he told Mr.
Beecher the substance OF the charges he intended TO lay
before the Committed Held, that the plaintiff was
| titled thereby TO put in evidence the written--
| Judge Nelson" The written charges"
| Mr.. Evarts-"The written charges" wholly the
ground that the substance had been communicated.
TIE NOTE EXCLUDED.
| Judge NeilsOn-I should have admitted those
| chargPs inieDcndent of conversation with Mr.