, 1875-02-01

eo,icn.rcncns In married 1,!o sut se,;ent 10 It,
lato Ia tlntenablo; That t!ln common law, mt
clIaiI:cd rxc'u'le'l Hpn te Ernnu, ef policy, btl
HAT tin etntutn 1T fHf7 lad changed thn cum
tf'i |nw in ity application tn tia. GREG. w
ting llaye tf,G ,ittrat n1ltipFticE nf ur HEate
sustaining tho proposition that, until statute
| ehangeA. tic Common law tn!a applicable t., {
case uf this Kind il retny,.ls thu la* os thin ta.t
that witness ptopoaol as this otle il nlllst b,
exr1Ntic1.
Flow, gt common law no party cu,ll la n viii
I'osa no formal pnr'y u IS tslil <n,Ii be Il uj;
he7a aud III l:ree nslfIll'tr nf rarta tn ,yl.lci
tnlt question might ltay1 nthet, hit sGr the ft,
tilat Tie witnenH WAS party. Il c;l'1 not nrr<
otcauHe tho COMMON Ii" awcpt thss nj aree = I
parties Hb T1thca.ea Dnr c'pfo sa tts,w III, tin
nattnr of parlirH{ {aMt tltiHi; my ltarue t1,cm1f
Mit h7k le"ttH!' uf' f'r"t1stlnn' rifs1FIr l1,nt
tins ground li'at TIN party ia Iot iaol tho fact
q bring party, to bo excluded M II HI.r:aa, and
tls, question when party IL called ii the If
to his exclusion rs i. you'll 10 II lle ~tro MT n
party. There ih llnthlnF. therefore. in that flint
changes tic .na of the noI.,tnf,I Iaw III Til. re
eaff l)r. Hilton III 1i0 Nero A,ltHi1sihle fer
beihg Farty llero thnn lta would 10 il he va;
mt . party. Then cann tho act Of 1867, which
was intended to moderate and qualify. Oh mat
tcra OF in:erett. tle excflrinn OF l,!4ba,,l a.sl
wife. Fnt when tin pract.c1 Tint inlerested
Witnesses nlu Ion ger be cxci,i'c,t csr1te ir,.
nll cflo tH to ,ntTdnae husband and wife nr +lo
Erond that tltctr exclusion rostel on lutrrcet.
ffnl'cd, before tho courts, Tor t:aey raid; mo,
II Testa upol tho marriage relation" Sor, our
inEislatiGtl has varie tic ruio Of the c1ilnlon
lEw. and with H,,c"iic intent to lit,eraliz, lilo
rfudlction Of eyi1enco fr1m husband ard wjfo
III n1astnrs in which t!lov are c3ucarnr,l tia, Gil
nttmtut H. found in tho HcsAion Iawe hac,n,,
ynIln1e nj laws Of 15i7. tugu a22I. /. l.a jrief
law; your Honor, Of rourse, lI1s had it peloru
s0H reuEatedly.
The law stands, then, on tic rule Of cr;,;onco
'1pon tln calnnlnu law; for tho biat,.e viii, nise
respect to tho n"t'tla of tue inlIir;. haa seen
ali t.f4i1., IL
of erl'!enGo Of either party agaiuHt tie other II.
that inquiry, 10 any extent .Eha.cYer ni.l ,ltat
any CARELESS expectations Oft 1ct,iHlnton tl,rt van
ea'la Introduce into such issucH and HucIl cn,,-
toFerElrH the testimony of either, nn1 cxrcct to
jitllit ur rctnco. Or coNo IL bY any rifle 0: t1t,-
tccting w!,nt WIS conti1cl.cc, or cxcmpg What
was eliminating, would ba n vain and ili;-n.y
effort thnt would 1cnyu tho f1a! r1Is relation and
tho administration Of juAtee III equal ,ln,5aco
a''G danger. Wo llayo how this Btatn Of tlius1.
ant need only nsk your HolIof'H attention to
tho tceitio Of the Gontral Ternl Of the supreme
Court Of thin Slate in the Fourth Department,
Enre tho passaEs Of this ac:, md in Grim. rt,1,,
cnne--thc cane uf Darn rs kin,atn, in tie first
q Aew York SuplcIno Court Hcpnrla, =. 49,.
t,2w tho s.i1Eto fact In Which the pEintiif WIZ
props'te;l to be called an q wtnrAs In this cauc
of Dnnn mt hlnsl.anl In plaintiff Htat,tliuy
III Mr.. Tilton Htnn,lB ltcrcl, wus to prove t:.e
marriage hctweon hin nul lis wlle. Ihat is ,rt
question arising 1T the confidence Of uar-
lato 0l tlo church anu tho "ur1; therefore,
t1a proof OF that fact dill not como within a,y
roaHo III any rllo OF exclusion from it's arinin,
III the tu!titdcHce Of marriage. 1t happens to
!;n e 'GrJ grave, fAcsicA! question for tho plnn-
TIL. lilo marriage, wo mAY sltppore WAS in
common or lHtnbfe 3lfo, and Ind occurred before
n Jllstlce of th0 peaca. and doubtless without
any troolH Of attendants ud frtCIl.1A; md tue
Jl3tlce ui tho l'tnco VIM dead, md the record
or certificate which tho law REQUIRES, sud 1,cr-
tlits to tt authentic wllcu conrormal to Inv
wien J!roduced, WAL found to be detective aud
1t could not be NHed, anu The plaintiff etoo1 ar-
pAfGn'ly M tho witnonB that must proye tbe
marriage. or It could not 10 proved Mt VII, and
he Offered 10 provo it, and by TIC ra1eB Of tho
common lAw, inside fronl tile marriags relntioa,
!!c. of cal1rao, w,s q goni wtntAa ID occurred
III Ills prehchce; As HaB atta,liny to tho rub.
lect, alll knew all abont it, I1e WIS excluded, avl
every elloit OF counsel, either nTEning upon d
chanSo OF policy, or upon statutory elt;cacy qI
the legislation Of fSG7, by which l!B wituesI
could be ea!od tor ttlat si.iglp fast n,,d act wa
oyotrllea l'y tho Court; md although tl,l4 atat-
nto lad expressly provided that in prosecution
for bEanly tla first ularrIago might be proved
by the husbaEnl or wife, nnd that iii un uctiun Ut
tvatcc. though the l'ariiea worn excluded gDr
every ntLtr tact. thoy could DO admitted to
prove tlte fact OF tho marriage that ,yns sought
1o tiisboiFetl, ~ no such saylps right lnl been
a1'plied by tue Legislature to tho action OF crn
con-, tAoa1Eh doubtless tho baulo reason might
apply. Tho Court conl find no change IN thu
common Inv as applicable to an aciou of erin,
con-. produced by tho statuto.Iopk4 vi the t'tato
New York. We aro uuAble, II ts,o Court
l'leaBc. 70 roc huy frctanao that by tho Htnt,ltas
OF Aew York Dir. 1ilton il made competent, Wc
Eco nothing 10 shake tho proposition that Ly tic
common law Of this S:ato. If thin action hal
been pending and Au llatl boan called bolure t,o
nnssaGo of that statute, he could no. bc i viii
crs. ns'd ho nIaa.s in tllo Ansno t.esitio. now.
putHTIoS 0F LAW, NOT w FalnSHs1,
!. Now, it niay keom, il tho Court Flease, that
Aore III hoino notlo Of failuoJs respect to tic
Gati,nu.'y pro and con III th1s case. TINT tin
ss n witness il tho tefcnlnnt liz. Tho difficulty
. that ho III lied BY r11lcs Of Inv thai relate TO
1lnl and sustain asaillst AH will llis loyalty to
marriage aud tho wife, and In order that all
'tnor m men may know tint loyalty to marriage
lnd the w3fa or ]Htsland roaiprocally is part vt
hc law Of Our land nut detcfmnaulo bY tha ca
rico or Will vicious or haloy0t nf any particu-
ar witness. hut III larger AeaHo from how is,-
qutable chnuga Of law ttat shoulu disturb, tho
nasrhto relation il! its Aal,csty, utll SHOULD o,en
ho n.uNtli ot tho husband aud close TINT Of tho
'ifo. What preclndcB alrs. Iitton from being
slsnoss in this suit IL btie to prove any uis-
tace upon her hlisbands None. III sle to |
'roso any peril Dr ruin 10 hcr children? .lono
s IL to tpS1ly A.aHt tic t1UHDy interest 1T this
aiAi III Inn action fur daaa2;tH fluin tuiadeIcud
at. s1lo would uphold everything great asl I
ear ntld permanent, tut hlle nifects tla 1nouey
eeoYely nsI the common: law excludes llur oil /
'aat ground, anu '1o change Of lie statute Ina
Introduced llrr. Aud yc. ii is supposed TINT tho
oulnlun law that shuts tho mouth OF tho witngns
'iau knows tho truth, ald whom the INV trc-
llmca innoee:t until she il proved guilty. SAW
llo cannot de!cid llcrsolf bccassao sl:c IN lilo
ito III Lh1a hllhbnlu, ami ln cuu destrnv her fo
auso As III lie hahbAud Ut t,s wife. + hprre-
uEtl tho cunosI law las h1un guilty OF l.o such
1ly alnco It's lonhdatioHB wcro hid, aIu! o, tiis.
yDur lunor rloasu, No submit tho proposition.
-'------
cEM Dnxct3,c AertJh.rh,.r