New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-07
WHAT IT Is PROPOSED TO SHOW.

Mr. EvartS-NO d0uOt, II your fIOhoT ricdS't
in the trial items Of proof are Introduced aud
propery introduced which, IN certain aspects only are
ustifaby introduced and only in those aspects are 70
have their weight with the Jury and hor consde alton
by The way that law protects Tie Interests OF
Justice in such not by suFPrcssing the evidence
because all Of aspects and every form Of IT, consider
alton are not ustl5e; but by Introducing t. in order
that IL may its application and its authority so TAR
a. the law allows it, application and Its alhcrtyi and.
by the nsrct tons of the Court tine minds 0f the Jury
are protected from those side influences which cannot
properly be allowed 20 the evidence Now, u Is I'M
doubtedly true that the situation Of accusation and -
suspicion the part OF the husband Is dc nn'oy maizoi
by the month OF December, 1870, and 10 Is quite true
that this interview later than hat aad perhaps II
by the plaintiff and his counsel, tie tral Of this
CAUSE in the opening Of the causc-of thclr ughtIG
grounds Of accusation and or proof anu al
the production of evidence, had limited themselves en-
rely to mpuatons AMI ID facts that were bounded ny
this as the laes, date Of :heir eydence-o Wit Deco'
ber 1s70-there might have been more reason FOR The
defendant ami his counsel when the explanation or cG
cupaon supposed to have been rendered necessary ~
the force OF the undisturbed evidence for 'Ae pantH
makes II in for lis 20 take up the case 10 l-t our
selves equally that the latest period OF our evidence
but they have gone on further and have minated 10
newa OF improper relations, and have supposed that
they found, in written correspond nee some equiv
ocal obscure concealed meanings OF disastrous M
MORT and they thus have opened this and this scope
of evidence AMI imputation. and have mai Il ttera
TO the very and the evidence that they introduce
in support Of issues ito wit, Of the antece eAt iau
that this subsequent period which resortoG 10 to.urnh
evidence should be met by by The only testimony N our
power to give where Mrs Tlton and Nj Beccher alone
we're witnesses and by such explanations or statements
concerning any written documents which have been nitro
duced as the writer Of the documents can furnish NOW,
this interview first described by the witness a. the only
visit at that house IN which lie had Int fview with
Mrs Tton lother than those he has already Described
that took place after this December trouble Tie plbLca
on Of the strife between the parties. How that inter
view came about and what occurred at propose TO
show and only say that is not for the purpose OK
showing any rectas statemn either the side
ar the other concerning this alleged difficulty guilt be
tween these parties the interview is TO be shown n
its innocence and in soemn.ty AM the law allows H.
as suppose.
Judge Nelson-wll you be kind enough 10 rcpea; your
question
Mr. Beach-Your Honor viii be kind enough 70 hear us
before passing upon Il.
Mr. FuIerton-Let the question be read BY the stenog
rapher.
The Tribune steaographer then read the question an
follows
90 Now Sir wha, passed between you and her on thas
occasion r.
Nj Besch-we desire 70 be heard. Sir, this queS
ton.
Mr. Morris-we have the closing argument.
Mr. Fullerton-Yes; close the argument.
Judge Neson-The only trouble have Is this and this
is the point want submit to you. Mr. Beach: While
think il may competent for the defendant 20 state that
he was present certain occasion and date, and did
sec Mrs Tton and without giving the conversation, 20
state what occurred-what done aud what omit
ted TO be done should feel inclined, at present
advised 70 90 beyond that and the question whether
even that Is proper.