Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1875-05-07

f announced that the defence here rested tLel
testimony.
MRS. IlITOS NOT To BE CALLED.
Mr. Beach here rose and said You
Honor. 50 much has been said about Mrs
T. Tilton being an incompetent witness. and
/ by the rules OF evidence excluded from The
stand in regard to the subject-matter sl
deeply affecting her position and interests
that We have deemed it due TO her, 10 our
selves and u the cause We represent. 10 an
noancc to YOUR Honor, and the counsel fsl
the defence that We make no objection what
ever 10 her being produced as witness
that whatever objections We might legally
present azainS; her competency a wines,
IN this case We waive entirely, and shall
raise no question il our friends on the othel
side choose to produce her. | may be per
mii;ei 10 say, perhaps, in addition, that
Mr.. hilton l. incompetent a. . witness
very much in the same sense a any other
witness VS. disqualified before our recent
laws on tie subject. by interest or relation
ship. and j; Is an objection which may be
waived by the parties TO the litigation.
: Your Honor viii remember the phrase0lo-
y Of tie statute On this subject, declaring
that neither of the parties, husband or wife,
one Or The other, saaI be competent " com
pei.ab.e 10 testify IN certain cases and in re-
gard 10 certain transactions. / suppose that
from tie language OF tie statute and the
known practice Un1er tie common law. II j.
a matter which rests entirely On the discre-
ton If the PARTIES to the litigation. except,
possibly. 50 for as il may he esteemed tie
policy OF the law u exclude revelations OF
confidential communications.
Mr. LyGrtS said IN reply, that the queS-
ton whether she could be q witness has
never been al actual question The law
prohibited i,, AID ,le policy OF law proaib-
itei IT, Tie general sense of the wisdom Of
that policy WAS brought cat during the
prosres, ol this case when the State Legs
lature were understood t. be considering
whether il was for the interests OF society,
under tine VrJ,ocati0n of the importance OF a
particular ease, that there should be an all
ro-ati0n of i-.e O., .4w. aud they should
abandon the pu..cy oi slci-tv and open the
disc.rls Of husband and wife swearing
against one another in court. and the Legs
lature by tie unanimous Judgment. a. we
must understand. and the concurrence Of all
/ people in the STATE. say oar laws wisely and
firmly determine that question. Now If
/ Mrs. Ilion al any time could legally have
/ been produced and admitted a. d witness,
/ there would have been two practical qucs-
tons for Is Is counsel which have never
/ arisen, because the law has seen her unfit
ness IN any litigation - which her husband
] l. party first, IN our character ui counsel,
/ If We thought our clients case bad any such
/ defect in the volume or force Of the evidence
/ that any other were needed, and We have
/ now 10 SEca opinion, 20 such view. II,
7 however, we had come t. dispose Of that
I question, ard the wife Were witness that
the law permitted L. be introduced, then We
should have the grave daty Of determin-
lnS whether some luJlry, even some weak
ness, in what We felt needed l. be
supplied on our client case. should proper
ly be supplied by q grave autagonism tear
ing in pieces the last shreds OF respecta-
bllity and hope for the failure Of this family.
Fortunately We have not been brought hy
any doubt or hesitation as u the force and
tullnes> Of our defense into that grave moral
question Bat your honor see, that these
aye all hypothetical inquirez, which ! should
not have alluded t. 10 tie least, bat for
the introduction by our learned friend Of this
proposition.
Mr.. Beach replied that much nigh; be
said as to how much Of re>pectability was
left TO that family and the responsibility for
that result. Il the defence chose to avail.
themselves Of that lady's Mrs Tton -
testimony in legitimate way our objection
being withdrawn, and present her testimony
in such shape and before such tribunal that
it should be treated by the ordinary rules of
evidence, and not by iniirection before I
another tribunal and in another shape. they
are perfectly IL liberty - do So.
Mr.. Egarts-l only need 10 say that We .
don't consider that 4 stipulation between +
parties to a violation Of tie law which e1- I
cludeS a witness, make him OF Ter 4 com I
peient witness.
Judge Neil>0n-This Is different from the |
question which previously arose. The offer 1
has been made ana the defence have declined /
IT. / confess | feel gratifed that the lady /
: not 70 be called.
Tie Brooklyn Eagle reports Mrs.. Tlton
as much offended al not being called as a
witness by the defence. The Eagle say size
even threatened to appeal to Judge Nelson
herself, and it " required all the persuasion
Of her friends and even the authority Of
legal counsel To prevent tie wronged woman
from carrying o.t tAe determination Of
throwing herself an lhe mercy of the court
and demanding to be heard
The Worcester Syy says
The position Of Mr. Tracy III relation to
the Bcecher case has been studious!y mlsrep-
resented in certain quarters OF course it
i for the interest Of the Tilt0u LAWYERS to
make the most Of any plausible vretext for
charging him with bad faith or breach of
professional confidence and courtesy, but the
implied if not express approval of Mr.
EyartS, whose standard OF professional honor
Is known 10 be very high, ought to fully
Offset any impatatious from that quar-
ter. 81 lar a. 1t appears Tracy did not
promise not TO become Mr.. Beccher's coun-
sci, and he was not, under cover Of that
promise or otherwise. admitted TO Tilton's |
confidence, Mr.. Tracy testimony on this
point was that he told Tilton that IF the
parties should afterward come into collision
on thai case, should not feel at liberty to {
be counsel for either party That case"
as Iilton then disclosed il, was charge Of
improper solicitation, which was promptly
repealed, and led to no criminal act In no
case founded upon such charge has Mr.
Tracy been counsel for Mr.. Beecher If l
man consults a lawyer in regard TO an al l
legged assault committed upon him by per
son, against whom be declares be has no ,
other grievance, the lawyer is not there
by debarred from defending the same person
from an accusation Of highway robbery More $
over, Mr.. Tracy did not receive Tilton conf i
ience, under cover Of his promise not to act I
Is counsel for Mr.. Beecher, or otherwise. for
be never had that confidence it Is not for !
Elton, at least, or any one in his behalf. to
say so. Ii be claims to speak the truth now,
be must admit that, pretending to take c
Tracy into his confidence, be deliberately S
led 10 him, and whatever promise he
received he obtained by this false
Dretence. \ promise 50 obtained, however ,
inv code Of professional ethics may regard |
t, law and common sense agree in pronoune- t
ng of no validity. On behalf of rilton, it o
must either be admitted that the promise .
vas so obtained, or that, the confidence be-
nc then genuine and complete, embracing
he truth and the whole truth. he has since I
bandoned such case against Mr.. Beecher as a
he facts gave him. and based his suit upon i,
ther charges not founded in fact VI
In either case Mr.. Tracy's conduct needs u
o apology.
MRS. TILTON's LETTER. II
May 3, 1875.
Judge Ntllson
ask the privilege from you for few 81
lords in my own behalf feel very deeply tt
ne injustice of my position in the law and h