New-York tribune., 1875-02-18
ARGUMENT OF MFR BEACH.

ARGUMENT OF MIX BEACH
Mr. Beach-May refer you to an authority, Sir
upon that subject which falls under my eye in Court IL OPP
portunity were given l have idea, Sir, but cumu-
stye decisions the effect could be given with great
readiness 1 understand the rule to be that where q
party enters upon line OF mmaera irrelevant evidence or
incompetent evidence that the opposite party has right
the lead gyen and enter the same class OF evil
dcnce l am sufficiently familiar, at this moment with
the rule say whether lit is absolute right upon the
part OF the opposite party to give that proo-answer
ing proof Your will perceive that might lead under
certain circumstances to great waste Of time II the Court
should allow irrelevant evidence to be produced by one party
because the had been permitted to present It, and we
may therefore qualify the rule 10 this extent thuk with
oprety that it is subject which depends upon the discre
ton of the Court exercised reasonably and justly with
reference subjectna and the particular crcum
which are upon occasion brought to the attention
Of the Court and that to be the result Sir OF the ex
preston found in Phillips Ecidene where 1t Is said
nc case, DO not upqn the question whether rree
want testimony being given Oh one side for the assumed pur
pose OF proving fact will warrant other testimony IN reply 10
that given either to repel directly or touching the TACT
ta 4 is Discretionary reject the evil
dence in reply In many ca,e. and indeed M ,ne s
endless il the Court have no power to interfere"
Judge Neson-Is that from the text, or 81 motel
Mr. Beach-It Is from the note.
Judge Neison-Is 1t Edwards notes, or Cowanss
Mr. Beach-n is Cowan's SirCowan and Hills. thiak 1t
u Edwards edition. Yes Sir it is the additional notes Of Mr.
Edwards Now your Honor will perceive that in the evidence
which Offer which consists only OF letter or wo-wo or
three letters which inadvertently omitted our direct
examnaon-there be waste OF the time or the
Court The examination likely proceed to extent
which will be tedious unfortunate II this Is question
which the concession am disposed to make-dependent
upon the discretion Of your Honor seems TO me that the
appeal which make TO that discretion must be nyncibe
y associate stated the object Of the evidence which they
introduced We in the freedom OF inquiry which chose to
permit upon the other side In regard to the relations
existing between this husband and wife, made no OBJ
lection to this evidence which they offered, as
snmng. II TO be irrelevant We permitted them TO
give letters Mrs Tton Mr. Tton and the
without objection object being that which has been
pressed SO forcby by my associate to your Honor Now in
exercise Of aust discretion Sir they having ayaed them
that character proof for the purpose either aVowed
or obvious would be harsh and unjust to deny
the introduction Of the from Mrs Titon to very linn
tied extent bearing directly upon that question: possessing
none OF the OF paro evidence leading TO no inu
ross waste OF tho Of this Court and Sir for
proper explanation OF the relations between the parties that
being the subject to which their evidence referred.
And we appeal your Honors discretion anxious TO do jus
ce between parties soctous ascertain the real truth
IN regard to these relations exercise In spirit Sir and
with an authority which will results and l.
without enlargng Sir pressing motives upon your HonorI
submit that would be harsh and extremely unjust exercise
Of discretion INIT the gentlemen upon the other side
TO avail themselves Of this character OF evidence and permit US
10 very brief extent to BY the evidence which we
propose.
Mr. Eyas-The question has nothing 10 do with discretion
or rreevanc Those topics remote from any consider
alton here which the legal right and the perfectly well
abhed rules Of evidence Now learned friends have 30
often pleased themselves with stating what going 10 say
in my summing up that afraid when come TO sum up
shall anticipated in point The question here
whether the evidence proposed legal or not object
10 H. II said that have put in evidence letter subee-
ouen In date TO the point discovery alleged by the complain
inc husband The Catherine Gauns letter. IL is called Is the
ony letter Of that kind that date that have in
evidence.
Mr. Besch-You are mistaken, Mr.. Ryarts.
Mr. Eyarts-Show others We have endeayored to
find all OF II not from want OF pains our part to
find out whether that make the statement
II YOU can point us anything else IT, Well will
assume the Catherine Gsunt letter is the only one
Mr. Mor,is-Wel that is mistake.
Mr. Rvars-What?
Mr. Monis-I quite certain that Is a mistake.
Mr. Eyarts-wel. will get 1t after II is ten
minutes past one. il your Honor please
Mr. Beach-You the only letter subsequent 70 the dis
coycry'
Mr. Evatssubsequent to the discovery We shall lose
whole II we go on In this way.
Judge Neson-Get ready retire gentlemen. The officers
will pass around there and keep the audience quiet
Mr. Beach-Give until quarter after two, please.
Judge Neson-Yes Sir. Gentlemen you will return at 9
quarter past two o'clock
The Court here took recess until 2:l5.
PRINCIPAL ARGUMENT OF MR.. BEACH.
The Court met, pursuant to adjournment, at 2:l5
p. m.
Mr. Beach-Msy be permitted Sir, TO introduce an author
II, or two upon question under discussion before adjourn
ment contended the part Of the defendant that
evidence correspondence between Mr. and Mrs Tnton
a relating to domestic intercourse It's character ad
missibe only after the discovery Of the oense charged
Mr. Pryor-Before.
Mr. Besch-Before the discovery OF the odeuse.
Judge Neison-Ony up TO the discovery.
Mr. Beach-Ony before the discovery OF the ofense charged
that s that the discovery, they say wellounded
plcion OF the ofense is the point which the limit Of
inquiry IL fixed. Ny associate, Mr.. Pryor, upon
the authority Of Mr.. Grecnleaf, took the position
,h,, the evidence WAS limited to the tms OF the