New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-07
disclaimer that continued monument at least - thus

disclaimer that continued monument at least - thus
charged.
Mr.. Fullerton-I didn't charge that
Mr.. Evarts-NO.
Judge Neison-I think you quite at liberty to prove,
and that as far you what occurred ana wnS
did not occur at this interview or at any other inerVo"
you choose to call attention TO-
Mr. Eyarts-Yes, sir 1t IL all part OF showing 'nS'
there arc no other interviews and that at this interview
ony matters quito outside Of confidence OF snecon
occurred
versstion o..
Mr.. Eyarts-Now suppose sir, could show tha' Ut
such an interview this answering what the suect
a. very familiar mode Of introducing conversation
rd oo,nc No further that the whole question.
II the witness the whole conversation was ABOUT
the weather. and nothing else was SAID why, INA. gives
an innocent view to an intercourse 10 know what wa"
or II the question whether 1t was about the
Of child anything Of that kind-and am not suppoS
ing now cases of what did actually occur but as nustra
tions of right of party which Is to put before court
and fury the actual OF conduct between parties
implicated accused during period from which evidence
at least Is sought, by the line OF my learned ehus
preparation to throw light back upon the an
tecedent accsation that must DO at liberty to SHOW
ond ~ can show I'm general can show in everything
that took place that nothing from which imputation or
support of accusation could be rightfuy drawn, In the
Judgment Of sensible men in the judgment of law by
the witness who can speak OF It,
Mr. Fullerton-That is not charged
Mr. Beach-The persistence Of my learned friend Sir
after the regular order Of debate is closed In presenting
the subject to your Honor, compes me to add word
Distinction is made Sir by the law and by your onor
rune "A between affirmative proof OF what occurred III
An interview and negative proof as to what dd not
and there IA a very clear distinction In principle Detwee
the two lines of proof The one is giving nadmissDie
declarations made by parties the other Ia simply prov
ing negative fact, and the latter Is often admissible
where the former would DO excluded. Now, as TO my
friends remark that the object Is to show that In this III
teryew there was no reference to precedent TRANSACTIONS
or to future contempations preparations or arrange
ments II that ia his only object how easy 1t is TO ask the
witness upon the stand in the manner suggested by your
Honor whether in that interview there was any reler
ence TO prior to subsequent arrangements 10
prove the negative fact establish the very idea when
he says 1t is his object to prove by his inquiry NOW
don't think should object to that, Sir am rather in
cined to think would be proper TO ask this gentleman
whether I'm that interview there any reference 10
their relations personal or to contradict any other
| possible assumption to what that inter
| view may have been carried in its terms. 1
| see no special objection to that, the
purpose OF the gentleman Is that which he has avowed
IL TO be to me- that In addition to his proof within your
Honors ruling Of the which ranspred between the
parties shall not object to his proving that certain SUI
ect or matters referred to in that interview
Mr. Fullerton ITO Mr. Beach would that be proper
Mr. Beach-It would be proper II this was introduced
nv us but am inclined to concede its proprety in the
present aspect OF the question
Judge Neilson-well Mr. Evarts, proceed and examine
vour witness as to what occurred independent Of con-
versations.