New-York tribune., 1875-02-02
Now, what was that paper that you thus read TO Mr.

mony Of the witness has been wifuly destroyed
Mr. Fullerton-If the gentleman by "lfIIy that
destroyed purposeiy -
Mr. Evarts-Yes sir for the papose CT bouing out OF
existence
Mr. Fuerton-Tha does not prevent from giving the con
tents of IL.
Mr EyarsIf we are be sdred by pagers e'us be ds
by pspers by papers that lave been ~f-y destroy N
and when the parties admit that spoaton Of evidence hy
must take the consequences of destroyed me paper anu
not reproduce not the paper but remembrance OF IT,
Nr Fullerton The gentleman h exceeding anxious 70 DC
judged by paper destroyed and cannot Dc pro
duced
Judge NeisonI mas lore settled that in case where
party ah prove the loss Of an instrument
and admit evidence Of rs contents he cannot be allowed 10
do o provided he himself destroyed the paper The qnes
ton h whether this destruction Of paper by this witness
Mr. Fucrton-Ths paper destroyed at time when
any litigation contempated was not destroyed io 'Ae
purpose Of deprvng anybody from any benefit that might arise
Of s particular phrases what was wntten IN u ~ AL
no such object that. your Honor will see after
moment destroyed because 1t was not thought ad
vslbe keep paper existence. iour Honor under
perfectly well the circumstances under when inc oTna
was destroyed That f. already evidence Mr. Noron says
he kept t until the Spring Of 1872 when the parte
agreement was executed and delivered up b Mr.
Ton and Mr. Ton says his WIFE, in his presence destroyed
il: and our Honor viii perceive that mere reason ~ that
time Of this paper which IL was very proper
execute and carry effect The only reason ever near
why parole evidence OF NIllltu t-i- l
been destroyed because been destroyed la fraud for
purpose obeanc The Of the paper 20 that an
advantage be obtained In giving parole evidence OF L
so such object existed Ia the mind Of any party at at time 40
all That is very apparent The rule docs uo cppy 20 cops
Of the paper al; IL only applies 70 the original
Jude Ne-ouI am in doubt about your right 70 give The
content. Of paper written by Mr- Ton the papers
were hers
Mr. Fucr;on-Vhy Sir this paper read 90 ,!r Beeche
communication 10 NJ Boecher by Mrs Iiiton ID was
not communication made anybody else. and your Honor
viii perceive IL designed by Mr.. ILton for
Mr. Becchcr and original hands Of Mr Mou5n-was
intended him II delivered by Mr. MoIton 20 DR.
Beclcr aud for tha The copy rl-osel o Now
wAa; propose 20 pa, u evidence here H cona~ ailoH
made by Mrs ril'1n % Mr. i echcr
Judge Neil-on-Uudes the ruling you La7a t 20 w. thai
The question whether you have r,t to rl~;c paper
written By Mrs T'lou. That s. my doubt
Mr.. Eyarts-A paper destroyed.
Nj Beach-YoIr Honor has ruled your Gt proposition in
regard right rc-stat, paper written by Ms It'r N
yolr former d.csion The only question which is pre-
sentel - upon the destruction Of the paper
Judge Neilson-I have not decided any -1ch question.
Mr. Beach, understand your Honor % decide thai whatever
was communicated Mr. BeocLor although ituay nave been
OF Mrs Tron, admissible ar between Mr.
e..ler and the witness Now this states the contents
Of paper by Ms Tlton but written by himself
and which be says the possession o Mr. Beecncr being
copy OF originally drawn by 1ir- IAtjnt not
being present Now OF this ed nee j. not 20 prove
any communication between Mrs. 1uon and her husband
the purpose Of IL IL 20 prove communication made - SIR.
Boeeaer. and 70 hear bis answer 10 mat COMMUNICATION
communication which in itself if your Honor
please reflects upon r-e c1a1set AMI character Of
Mr. BocchCr. made under deliberate circumstances, Al
an interview called for the purpose of presenn3 TO him
charlc The object and elect Of this evidence % show
that either Mr Blc,her denied or qualified " admitted H.
Now no matter wh4 the on no matter from
what source originated. matter M v'aat f7rn was com
muu.ca.3 t is . statement made 90 -.- t.,l-r- upon
AL occasion he called up.n 10 defend himself from
and me character Of the defendant presents the
point and tAc p Of This evidence Now the paper referred to
u Itself dc prove the truth Of Wna- cJrAllc.. ANY
declaration tha M T,8L may have made Mr. Beache upon
thar occasion conclusive evidence OF the proof of Ie
charge I- truth fschood depended entirely
/ upon the conduct and the declaration OF ar BeecAer
made in response 20 IT, Suppose Mr. Ii-on had
taken from his pocket paper and said 10 Mr. Beecher
read NJ H. u you Of having Illicit intercourse
with m>vfe certain day that did BOY prove anything in
itself t evidence whatever 90 support the allegation
Tie and effect Of u depended upon the cutc aad
d.lr ON Of NJ Bccer IN answer 20 that accusgon Now
j. does all question Of confidential communicl-
uou a- between husband ard wife and he only point OF -
oo ectou unders,aud I is that ts paper vas voluntarily
destroyed by Mr. Tltou upon Iat yey occou and there
fore he cannot reproduce from recollection NOwI suppose
w know very well what the rule gard 20 secondary proof
Of instruments lost destroyed agree tAa Z ts paper
was DESTROYED with fraudulent purpose. lor tie pur-
pose of upprc--ue proof FOR Tie purpose of alyanc2
the interest Of the party who then bel. 10 10 possession.
why bee give DQrDle evidence Of -s contents But
w.sdcroycd propose 20 show by joint agreement and
understandings admission and acc.,erce Of both these
parties al ,lc tine they being the cou;esn4 parties and te
only parties Dee affected by operation why. then there
mutual that Tails paper Wa- no longer Necessary
and proper be reserved, and that should oc destroyed
Wl Pee -ad l4, where parties thus agree 10 the ces-c-
on o. an that the mouths Of uo, o them are for
ever closed from publishing couteutsAa as not an IN
uoccu destruction in the way Of business or by arr-cmen
between parties aud possessing tne fraudulent Characters
tic Ao mouths Of botl u 20 W couteu-sf Allow
lie read your Honor from tie case Of Taylor Riggs:
eft not by means, matter oi course i0 ic parry
give erond4r5 ."lcl-e' - ~ .h I'D "le.- "a, i ~ 3 .-
occurred without hs agency or assent or even "l 'o'i-
ary and hs own act oltye' done under mistake 50 o. ~ E
but a Of contemplated fraud inferior evidence Viii
usually be- allowed
Vow our purpose f. 70 show your Honor ne Circumstances
under which thi. paper destroyed cpuiang utterly tAe
idea that there any fraudulent purpose in the act or that
there could be- any fraudulent efec. rcsutia- rom r.
,rs should party destroy paper under .hc erroneous
impression could be Of no further value be- may,
Withstand ug, prove is contents by secondary evidence
These parties had only conversation but may say
partial reconciliation upon this occasion They came to an
understanding IN r. gard the Of thai Instrument and
the use Of the that time may freely admit un
deand that the Here then destruction Of the
paper only upon the part u Mr. Ion with the idea that
It could farther but with the entire concurrence of
Mr. Beechcr the defendant IA that conclusion That dcsuc
ton by mutual consent the idea tat then the subject
matter contained that paper forever closed between
them however subsequent circumstances may have revived
the subject and introduced this controersy neycrth@ lees
in the fact Of destruction under the impress then
tanned by both Of them, cannot close the moi u either Of
them a. 10 the contents Of the papers.
"Or shoud destroy a It's being paid bank bills,
he -upposing AZ that they genuine when
truth hey were counterfeit same result would follow
Suppose il should this occasion that upon
tain assertions and considerations presented Mr. TOn
10 the time he was drawn TO the conclusion that paper