New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-11

these wtnesses-then it is true Of witnesses side,
and right back to the proposition that II wit
nesss evidence the stand IL cOuntervaed contra
dced by other witnesses the stand you go then
into % controversy cOnrmatory aid to the witness,
the fact that OF they said TO this and that
what agrees with what they in court and you
right back then the old proposition that has long
long ago been disposed OF.
Mr.. FULLERTON REPLIES TO MR.. EVARTS.
Mr.. Fulert0n-If your Honor please the
force OF the argument submitted by my learned associate,
has neither been broken impaired in the slightest de
gree by anything that has fallen from the counsel upon
the other side lie has quoted authority, either from
a report or from text-wrter which counervas in the
slightest degree the doctrine which was established
by the argument of Gen. Pryor. This case
has been presented upon the part OF the
defendant IL contendcd that tho
rule was that where witness sought TO be inn
peached by proving first his character for truth and
veracty bad the second place. by proving state
ents out of court inconsistent with those made In court
that in such evidence could be produced upon
behalf to show that statements out OF court had been
made By the witness consistent with those sworn to in
court. Now, that is not proposition at all. con-
cede agree with the counsel upon the other side that
the rule in this State is that cannot show In court
statements of witness consistent out of court-you can
sistent with statement made out OF court.
Judge Neson-In the progress of the case had Occa-
sion to state that rule at least once, think
Mr. FullerOn-And your Honor will recOllect that we
made the reply that that the general rule but that
exceptions to it. Now, what Is the attitude OF
Mrs. Mouton to this casel What has she testified to that
material to this which 1t becomes necessary for
to sustain by showing that she told similar story out Of
COURT Attention is called to June g 1873. She alleges
that at that time she had versatOn with Mr. Beeche
which detailed upon the witness-stand- very i'm
pOrant piece Ofevdence in this controversy How met
upon the other sidei 1t is met first by what they call
contradiction upon the part Of Mr. Beecher. He says
that such conversation had that it is all ction
invention upon the part Of this witness and he adds
further Sir, that that story told by Mrs. MoultOn
under the influence Of her husband and that that nfiu
brought to bear upon his wife after the relation
Of friendship, which had long existed between Mr.
MoultOn and Mr. Beecher, was broken up. That. your
Honor will recollect, late in the Summer Of 1874
They put this therefore, upon the ground that Mrs
Moulton overshadowed by her husband, has invented
this story and stated here to the detrmen Of the de-
PENDANT In this case when there truth whatever in It,
Now, how to meet the proposition, Sir that that
was invention the part of this witness under
the influence OF her husband! How meet it SO
well show that in 1873, in the month Of June and
the day when the took place at Mrs
Moutons house, that she told that story to third parties
as she has told herei Does 1t completely the
accusation that 1t is invention Of recent datei Now,
repeat Sir, admit that il they had mpeached Mrs.
MOut0n by producing witnesses to swear that her char
acter for truth and veraciy not good that could
not give any such evidence propose. admit
that il they had been able to prove that Mrs. MOulton
had said out of court what entirely inconsistent with
hor story in court that could have given this evil
dence that propose. We do not disagree with re-
gard to the general rule but do disagree with regard
to tho exception to that general rule.
Now what is the oxcept0n 1t was clearly stated by
my associate his argument presenting this case that
where it imputed to witness that the story told in
court. under OATH recent invention, and had its
origin in improper influence lately brought to bear
upon the witness that there You may overcome that
operation by showing the story to have been told
at a prior period when the influence did not exist,
when the for it did not exist. Now what Is the
law Of this State upon this subect 1t very clear very
well defined and not easily misunderstood
The first is the OF the People agt. Vane and your
Honor will bear with me while read somewhat from
these authorities to show exactly what questions
and what questions decided in that Now. in the
People agt vane a prisoner put upon his trial for
crime. witness by the name OF Wapshot was intro
ducpd give evidence against him, and In order To i'm
peach that evidence they suggested that he gave 1t for
the purpose OF producing immunity from punishment;
that he acknowledged his completely with the offender
on trial. and for tho purpose OF counting favor with the
supposng that ne would not be put upon trial himself for
the offense In order to that, the District
Attorney offered to prove and did provo, under perms
sion of the Court that the Witness the accomplish
the same relation tho time, that the oense
mtted before either himself the party trial were
put In jeopardy and before there any nducement
tell other than the truth. The evidence admitted.
Now that brought that wit hin the exception to the
general rule Now what does the Court say In regard
that
The right OF either party to support and fortify the
testimony his essential 10 the preservation
OF the rights OF individuals as well as the public When
a witness ia sworn and testIhes his testimony prn,d
aeie entitled TO belief IL his character il attacked 1t
may supported; II his testimony is shown by other
witnesses DO false doubtful, other witnesses may be
introduced To sustain the testimony given. IL wit
ness introduced by the defendant to show that the
plaintiffs witness has given different account OF the
transaction about which he has been testi,
To that the frat witness has previous occasions
gwen story TO which he has testified. IL Is not
stance Should party offer TO do II would show that
he unworthy of belief II IL received only In reply
and in doubts attempted to be raised by the
other party by impeaeg the witness either by test
mOny by examination may be proper when
the witness stands impeachcd by the direct testimony
given by himself as In the present case The witness
pnce his testimony Ii therefore suspicious: 1t comes
from tainted source and may we'll he doubted In such
seems To me the principle applies that witness
who In impeached may be supported.
Now your Honor will perceive that the learned Judge
In deciding that question, went beyond what
sary to accomplish that object. because he decided moi
only that u witness could DO supported and sustained In
such but that he could be supported and sustained
where his character was impeachod for truth and
veracity, by direct evidence, or whore 1t was In
cidentay impeached, by showing that he hsG
tnld mt of Ia lini