The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-02


shown him no statement; | then said s.Do you
not then understand the object OF this interviews
piled, "You shall understand it more speciGcaay
VIII read TO you statement which Elizabeth has
OF IL; VIII read TO you the copy; p then put my
hand into my pocket. took out some papers. and,
Mrs. riItons paper. he sad 70 me. Before read
Ing tell me wnat Mr.. Bowen has been saying
mcned him to ee inierviswed for the purpose or
discussing with him Bowens AFFAIRS. but that he
should 20 90 Bowen himself; nevertheless as he
IN an interview wish me on the preceding Mon
day, had made q statement that you have been
guilty OF adultery with numerous members OF your
congregation ever since your Indianapolis pas
torate. all down through these twenty-five wears /;
where you have shipwrecksd the happiness Of
shall no longer speak Ia Plymouth cnurch and he
says distinctly tnat You are wolf In the fold that
It was matter OF amazement to MN that Bowen
SHOULD nave so spoken; taat ne said, when
retirement rom Piymo1:n pulpit he appeared 70
De friendly and offered me his friendly services In
% a. soS n sSas mad
paf naS sna rt.s demand on him TO e retire;
such letter should be wrrten had said that
the the i reason why ne could not write It himself
with Mr.. Beecner, and that Bsechsr had begged
crimes ne. had committed; that AIR. bowen said
Beeener. but that il would Initiate them BY
sustain that demand. aud in the interest Of NOR.
atty and religion. expej Mr., Beecher from his pull
said that Sa Mr. Bowen. mad Il in his power at any
time to drive Mr.. Beecner out OF Brooklyn within
OF MIS- has Mr. Bowen sS SSSs
have said sucn things TO him, or TO me
on Monday. ana then nave EXPRESSED himself in
on the occasion OF leaving The letter. then told
Mr.. Boecher that after had had this interview
with Mr.. Bowen had narrated the substance OF
II TO my vile; that my wlie was III, and that this
intelligence filled ner with profound Distress and
violation OF my pledge and promise 70 her. made
In the preceding summer. that would never 90
in any exposure Of his secret ret to the pubic. She
SAID 70 mo that "if Mr.. Bowen makes war upon
Mr. seecner, ana ifyou that Is mel loin IN It, ana
later know the reason why, ana tnar," she SAID TO
shame, and can't endure IT.
MT. Evarts put IN an exception on the grounds
that the evidence Indicated the nature OF the
communication.
Witness connnued-Mr. Beecher then asked me
Seth and her hsms read to S the Coy
Of Mrs Iilton's confession, copy OF when mad
on a san as
copy has been destroyed; It was destroyed that
evening mr. asssa yaP
my presence, Immediately after the rrtpartte
o NOW, what Was the paper you read to Mr.
Mr.. Evarts-I object Oh the ground that it ap.
been wfuliy destroyed.
MIR. FulIerton-lf the gentleman means BY viii
Mr. Evarts-Yes for the purpose Of getting it
out OF existence.
Mr. Fulerton-That does not prevent Us from
Mr. Eva ts-lf we are to be judged by papers,
let us be judged by papers not Ds papers wIltuly
non OF anything. they must take the consequence
OF having DESTROYED the paper.
anxious to be judged " papers when DESTROYED.
the nav; g prove
written py nimselL II destroyed.
MT Fullerton-Tnis paper was not DESTROYED at Q
was not destroyed ior the purpose Of deprivins
anybody OF any beuett that would arise out OF It's
psrtcnlar phrases ;s Tnas rs wrisSsn There
Ia very few moments. Your Honor understands
perfectly well the circumstances under which the
original was destroyed; that IS already In EVIL
Until alter me spring q is7s WHEN S the spaSits
cred up to Mr.. Triton. and was destroyed by MIN
In hts wtie's presence. Your Honor Will see there
ana was posr g
destroy II. The only reason why the witness can
Is & e ~s n o. oG s
purpose OF obliterating the contents Of the paper
some party Of ne S1 met o. IT, There
stance. The rule does not apply. - my associate
reminds me, to copy oithe paper.
Mr.. Fullerton Why. sir. this paper was read to
Beecher BY Mr.. Triton; it was not q communication
made to anybody else. Your Honor Will perceive
Mr. Bsecner rns orSna IL tie nanaa ' Of MI IT,
Mouiton was intended Tor him. IL was not deliv-
~ copS wss resorea m Sow
propose 10 put In evidence here Is the cOmmunlca-
ton made BY Mr. Tllton to M: Beecher.
written py Mrs Tltou under your former decision,
the question now presented IL the destruction OF
The Judge-we are not discussing that point.
MIR. Beach, understood you to say, under your
to Mr. Beecner was admissible as o statement OF
Mrs. T1ton to Mr. Beecher. Nov, the witness wants
to sra IN - HS1 81 no Dss G prs
ent Now inc object TO, O. this witness no; to
Communication made 70 Mr. Beecner. and to
give MS answer 10 the communications commu-
S'e conduos and q
Mr.. Beecner, made under deliberate circum-
presenting TO HIM the charge. the object and ef.
tect OF this evidence 10 to show either that Mr..
no matter what the communication was, no mat
tor from what source IT originated, no matter IN
what form IL was communicated, II Is still state.
ment made to this defendant upon an OCCASION
when he was called upon to defend himself from
It's iorce MIR. Beach ms sted that tn. decar ration
OF the defendant presents the point and pith OF
this evidence. Reading rom law book, ne
said :-''ft IS not matter OF uncommon occur
renee to let party give secondary evidence, even
wnero the direct testimony has been destroyed,
aud 1t is clear shat unfortunately IT was done un-
der mistake. and under these circumstances the
IDEA TO offer other evioence Will be allowed"
suppose IL should turn out In this case upon
certain contingencies and circumstances That
driven 10 the conclusion that this paper wasn't OF
any lurtner use. anu that subsequent acts, ten
dered upon the part Or Mr.. Beecher, revived the
necessity Tor Its use can It DC SAID that cannot
be proved by secondary evidencef Now the rule
ls:-"But party wh0 under any pretence OF
mistake, or accident, voluntarily destroys primary
evidence, and proves 1t was against him. or 10
create an excuse for it, nou-pro0uctton, thereby
excludes himself from the benent or supins
evidun.u
Nj. Evarls-A paper iound II IL said IN the
basis OF the error, anu the basis OF the commune
cation between these two parties It was de-