New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-11

Bcccbcr and Mr. Triton bu, that Affirmative instructions
given to deal with The Golden Age in the conduct OF this
CA,san Union newspaper with any other paper that was
published.
Mr. Bcach-Ob,cc,ed to, Sir
Mr. EysrsYour Honor the point Of view in which we
present learned friends have introduced line OF in
sinuang evidence Carrying imports Or
Mr. Morrs-One moment object TO the council arguing
question which your Honor has decided He has made his
o1er and your Honor has ruled upon IL.
Mr. Evarts-I don't understand so.
Mr. Morhs-And now this irregular Of arguing an
appeal from your Honors decision They asked question:
your ruled upon it, he has made his proposition and his
| Honor has ruled upon that.
Judge Neson-The counsel don't understand that have
ruled upon this last offer.
Mr. Evarts-No.
| Mr. Morris-You have ruled upon IT,
Mr. EyarsI have not heard word his Honor but only
| from Mr. Morris
Judge NcsonMr Morris view s Of that the qucs
ton involved the thing
| Mr. Eyarts-That may be.
Mr. Mos-I say after making the proposition he has no
right your Honor having ruled upon the mattehc has no rt
proceed aud argue It again. He put the question: your
Honor has ruled upon he makes his propositions your honor
has ruled upon that Now say out OF order TO proccu
and argue the question further .. -,
Mr. Beach-Pcrm me say Sir that for the purpose VI
this question the counsel addressed TO the witness
two questions involving this proposition iour h
ruled upon them excluding tho evidence The geh'can nV
submits the same matter in the form OF proposo"' anu ~
that "a an occasion upon which to make now argument ~
the same question your Honor do not perceive n ''
~ hao any sneeial right TO make objection II your Honor
pleased to hear the counsel why OF course ahough
irregular to this debate question over ana over agar" VIC
must submit TO your Honors discretion and 70 Tue disposition
| of the counsel
Mr. Eyarts- your Honor please II it is matter OF pleasure
that has been long ago ouvcd the part OF all concerned III
| this trial.
Mr. Beach-Never, Sir OF listening 10 the COUNSEL it is al
ways delight
Mr Eyarts-But is matter serious duty and do not
propose insist enlarge in abuse OF your onors patience
and kindness proposition. but am strictly regular IN
| it submit The questions having been ruled upon' now
make the offer which proper and that offer dscloscs not the
question but the nature proof sought to be evoked aud
in that connection ay-and proceeding to say when In
terrupcd by your Honor but by Mr. Morsto say 'ha
the plaintiffs counsel introduced line OF nsinuatins evil
dcnce to which they expected give import and weight by
| argument and then when are in possession Oh
| counter proof that puts the action imputed to Mr.
I3eecher upon an entirely opposite footing, with an
entirely different from that which their mode OF stat
ing sought envelope him in we submit that IL Is Wlhh
the line counervang proof to remove that POSITION ha'
they think they planted the and we stand there
either upon our possession Of the proof and its Introduction OF
our possession of the proof the laws exclusion Of it, one or
the other That is all do and your Honor VIII dispose
Of this question that you have disposed Olive
shall hear 1t from onors mouth and not from the Soun
| sells
Mr. Mors-I shall take occasion 10 object whenever
| fit.
Mr. Rvars-I have slightest objection TO your object
inc but you must not substitute your objection for his Honor
| statement
Mr. Morrs have substituted objection OF mine for his
Honor statement your Honor distinctly ruled upon the
question: the counsel simply puts the question IN he
shape Of proposition, and that your Honors ruling
covers that presents question for the consdera
ton Of the ALL and the counsel makes speech IN the
form OF proposition and then proceeds TO argue the speech
and claims the right argument upon the speech be-
cause he has made speech in the shape OF proposition
Now say again. and repeat that the proceeding OF the
counsel was out OF order; 1t not regular pro-
| ceeding Your Honor had ruled upon the question.
and putting In the form Of proposition did not give the
counsel right pursue the argument 1t was in effect de-
oed by your and the counsel was proceeding out OF
order and shall occasion whenever proper object
TO the counsel way and will not be caeched by the
| counsel for doing it.
Judge Nelson testimony had, given the part
plaintiff the conversation between him and the
defendant simply reference to The Union and its treatment
OF himself and Of The Golden Age his newspaper That has
| been produced the part OF the plaintiff; that is
| ALL That was admissible because it converse
ton the parties TO this action The proposition
now is OF very different character wit to give in evidence
instructions conversation had by Mr. Beecher with his
poyes or co0peraves in the the
manner in which The Union should treat The Godn Age
treat the plaintiff aud unfortunately there is rule OF law
existing be found anywhere that would enable the Court
if the disposed TO do IT. to receive evidence OF
r pdr conversation between Mr. BeeCher and the persons
employed on Tie Uni0n entrusted with its editing and
have no power the subject Ii not question OF disce
ton inclination There rule OF evidence that would
Justify me in receiving this conversation which took place in
the absence plaintiff in respect TO which the plaintiffs
have made no inquiry and therefore is necessarily
! ruled out.
Mr. Rvsrts-Your Honor will please allow observe that
| do n
Beecher For instance supposng had been imputed Mr.
Beechct that he had said he would suppress publication
| Judge Nelson-Wel, even then.
Mr. Eyarts-And prove tina: he went of and polished.
Judge Nelson Did the contrary, yes even then suppose
party 10 the action says 81 will do thus and So He has
| changed his mind and does the contrary.
Mr. Evarts-We 1t stated by the witness that he said
that he would suppress and the point is that suppression is
confession Now, is TO be said that could not that
| he promulgated'
Mr. MorrsIs the counsel in order now will inquire OF the
Court,
Judge Neilson-YesI will hear him I to say that
there is no rule evidence known that would justify in
receiving this evidence either evidence OF conversations Of
what took place the absence Of the plaintiff between the de-
PENDANT and other person the defendant had promised
10 shape and temper OF The Union avofaby TO The
Goen Age and had changed his mind or failed TO do it or
given contrary instructions that parts action conversation
| could not be given in evidence
Mr. Eyarts-The action submit II your Honor please could
be given in evidenceto what his action Because be
had said bis action would be otherwise would not Precuds
ANYBODY from showing the action waif the action itself
was proper subject Of evidence Your Honor does
bring this within that rule.
| Jrdge Neilson-weil, l have decided the point
Mr. Egsrts-we except TO the exclusion OF our offer.
Judge Nelson r Tracy, you will proceed
Nj Tscy-You have stated when you went upon The UhioH
and that you s there managing editor now ask you
whether the course OF The Union in fact conducted with
reference 10 any difficulty M Beecher and Mr. ton
| otherwise!
Mr. BeschThat objected TO- Sir upon two grounds: FIRST
vour Honor a. ruled action admissible and