New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-07


of opinion that this interview. in ts nature ana occur
renses "a separated any reproduction at OF ante
oedent affairs or of prospective arrangemenn-anytnng
that characterzes this interview IN s present occur
rences as an between the partes-may DO DISCLOSED
II 1t may DO disclosed at ALL 1t may be accurately dis
closed to DO explicitly understood There Ia no
ro Of evidence that puts of with inaccurate ana IN
explicit productions Of scenes shall confne myself TO
the exclusion Of anything that is in tho nature OF 10
cita II anything Of tho kind occurred, and am not
advised that anything didOn the contrary that on
at all; and propose to show that this interview N '
whole character was separated from any notion OF s
being renewal Of confidential or aectionate or Social
relations In any form degree; that 1t occurred aer
this period according this witnesss evidence In req
ruary 1871 Mr. TiltOn in the presence OF MS whe' A
expressly desired that the relations and the vss anu
the intercourse should be as had always peeh oc
and don't know any evidence to the contrary Oh ,n
part of the plaintiffs and yet propose to show tina. .s
ntorview ON both sides was of the utmost and dsnc'
reserve from anything like an encroachment upon w.
situation produced between them by TINS 'rouoio
had been raised, and that that mterVie" We" 49,.
the resort for advice In moral troauio' '
the wife In, and OF the ioNs .,
vice or instruction that given at tne unio
Now that is the mode of showing. without infringing
mon the idea Of conversation distinguished from "c'S
and intercourse Of the parties then presently ue'o
the character Of that ntercourse-Of showing pom "'
did take place and what didn't take place whin you.
all the rights of this plaintiff will be maintained by
roSuc,n ~ the scenes and the action of these two
parties.
Mr.. Beach-NO.
Mr. Eyars-And tho exclusion from IT, II their comes
out anything the matter Of recital or conversation ha
your Honor thinks is outside Of your admission.
Judge NeilsonThe counsel. Of course who have given
attention to this subject understand its bearings and
also the force Of the principle involved better than do
of course, that question coming up TO me suddenly pa
apart from any artistic design in the examination OF te
witness and looking at from my simple manner Us II
were proceeding under this rule think woud W Nv
boty under my ruling, to give In evidence what time Oh
day this interview was, and where 1t was now long
was; whether any act indicative OF special anecuoh
occurred then and there refraned FROM whether
| any act questionable in moral sense occurred, 80
characterzng it throughout, and then as understand
your last argument, Mr.. Evarts, the questioh VIII
remain whether you could ask the general question
whether the interview simply upon moral ana To
lgious subject, otherwise. Have you not got IL ALL
| thenf
Mr. Beach-Your Honor's suggestions are very practca
| and simple
Judge Neilson-They are simple; there is no doubt OF
| that.
Mr. Beach-And very practical and think In their
simplicity and practical nature they emb0dy very con-
siderable legal perspicuity and learning ana thnK
there was no artistic design the part of my learned
friend il would be very easy to follow the line Of inquiry
which your Honor has suggested But what is the ques
toni Your Honor has ruled that the declarations OF
these parties called under these circumstances cannot
be given evidence for obvious reasons that the
act may be- far there conduct and personal RELATION
il concerned was connected with that interviews but the
gentleman calls upon the witness, party TO charac-
terze that interview its subject the matter discussed,
| presenting in o still more Odious form the evidence
| TO which object, because it would be great
deal better and surer evidence, and address Itself
| more to tho approval Of tho law, TO, nave
| what was really said than to have an interested
party give construction and conclusion
upon what was said The latter would be the more OBJ
ectonabe OF course. The former your Honor has ex-
cluded But will you look little further at this Sir
We have given evidence OF this interviews ana what
is the situation presented by tho proposition OF the
learned COUNSEL We charge that upon certain pre-
codent occasion there improper connection be-
tween these parties We charge that was confessed by
both the parties and great degree the confession stand
ing in their written words which cannot be erased or
forgotten and which say cannot be explained Ihey
come with the answer that year subsequent to those
events they had moral and pious interview. They
fabrcate and introduce the interview In our ABSENCE
without any communication to u.s. as an argument and
for the of answering the accusation they produce
their own interviews and their acts introduced by
themselves which have made no reference directly
or remotely, to conclude our rights. Now, there Is
great deal in the dea your Honor please that this IN
How does it reflect upon any letter that Mr. Beecher
has written or upon any expression that he has used
How does it tend to explain or connect itself with
any antecedent act OF his except as cOnont and rccp
roca act as between him and his inculpatng colleague,
happening year after the acts which we charge upon
him possible. Sir is there rule of evidence
which uses accused parties in getting up an interview
between themselves and giving evidence OF their own
acts in that interview for the purpose of answering
charge and accusation made against themf And upon
what principle shall BET Why my friend says you must
receive all evidence Everything which reflects light upon
the given transaction is to be presented to the court and
to the Jury under the instructions from the court the
Jury are to be protected from any injurious influence
That not law Of evidence, Sir Everything which
by possibility might crcumstanally affect given trans
action by admissible The law requires evil
dence Of certain character. The law imposes Hmta-
tons upon proof which shall protect the rights OF the
pose party which shall put parties upon equality Of
right and wherever accusation explanation Is made
shall leave to such the of proof to the in
culpaton OF another. And how do you place this
plaintiff Sirf Permitting these parties to give In
evidence a private interview between themselves,
private act as between themselves with which
we have no connection and Of which We had no knowl-
edge shutting voice and means OF presenting the
truth in regard to the alleged transaction The law by
no means Sir permits any suchinusce. Parties cannot
themselves manufacture evidence, can they thus in
troduce their acts although they may be truthful
and accurate their representation The law does not
permit make proof in the absence of their adver
sary by which the just rights Of that adversary may be
overhrown and yet that Is the character
Sir In 1871, nine months after the accusing transac-
on they ask the liberty to to your Honor what
they have done in private between themselves to
fleet light upon the prior transaction. perceive
rule Sir OF equity Of law in such proposition, and
very much doubt whether any Of the details far the
acts Of the parties concerned is competent
tn
inquiry whether had been the criminal connection
between the parties charged And 1t is novel way Sir,