New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-29

the formers marriage to plaintiff who had sued as femme %
| and on his evidence she nonsuied
Of necessity your Honor ia aware swhere awnc
permitted the criminal law to testify against personal
violence otherwise husband would be protected by the
against all sorts personal and private injury TO the VIE
in the absence Of any other witness.
In Davis o. Dinwoody 4 I. r. 67s. Lord Kenyon says:
Independently Of the question Of interest husbands ana
other From their being so nearly connected hsy are sup
10 be permitted to give evidence alher for or against eS
other"
That was case where neither husband wife were parties
And which have just read Of Lord Mansfield
Lord Kenyon approved in 9th New York, page l5
Now that divorce does not open the mouths Of either
party the previous marriage the OF Munroe Twae
ton (Peakes ddtl. Cas-. 800, Lord Ayaney says:
ITO prove any arising after divorce this LADY he on,
anything el4e which happened during the ooyerue se
that time bound to secrecy what she did SIC Eu 10
in Of the trust ami confidence vposed III o
her husband"
Now that action was Of this kind Assampi for Che board
Of an infant She who the time Of the Transaction was de-
PENDANTS wife since divorced. was called as "ne'' "
prove the contract Lord Alyaney says:
II shall never be endured the confidence which the lazy
a roons sa Ice broken whenever by the misconduct Of
one party or misconduct alone can have that enteV Tue rea
tion has been dissolved -
And in the case Of DOker & H,sler Ryan Moody 1879,
BEsr, c. j., says:
81 remember that in That case Monroe rs. Twlsleon,
psqte's AdTfT Crs 21l in which counsel Lord A'r1r
len refused to allow woman divorce TO speak to con-
rsatiOas which had passed between herself aud her husband
during he existence Of the marriage am satisfied WIN me
propey decision and think that the happiness 81 the
marriage state requires that the confidence between 'n ali
wife should DO kept forever inyioabie
This was an action by an administrator for false return to
a. The defense that the execution was frardueny
taken protect the goods Of the tesato against his az
sgnee in bankruptcy To Prove this the teatos widow was
called to testify conversation between herself and her
deceased husband and the testimony was rejected
In the case OConor Majobanks 10 Scotfs new "i
Manning and Granger 435 In following Monroe e. Twsc-
ton the Court ISDI, c. j. CALTSAS MAULE D. d. says:
"a wife shall give evidence either for her husband or
against him motor Num- because their Interests are me sam.
and not against lin. because thereby dsenoh ahe HpI
might families We asked 70 conine 0nr judgment
only Of confidential communications but thnk na
would be dangerous and nconcnicnt It either To- ade b
Lord ALyANEl judgment in the case OF Monroe INetoh
| aboyel; that is the better and sounder doctrine
In Barbr Allen "a ETcl. G)9 s. C. 10 E.g L. = H. $751;
Thu. case of OCOno Majprbank cited as holding that
e rule Of exclusion does not stand the ground OF the
sacredness of conuel communications, quoting MAUIE D.:
1.-THE hardy stand upon that ground but PoLIECK
b saws: am not prepared express assent to those ooser
vaons The rir L. that 20 far as me II" ''H t1Ct snCs
where husband and wife a.e not parties TO the proceeding
! at all ="
In stapeton y. Croft 9i Law Journal s. @ 2i0, it
held CampL H. C. j., giving the opinion though 1t wA'
after Lord Boushams passed which introduced GER
tain latitude for husband and wife the statute has H. tha-
The disqualification husbands and wives rests not merely
the ground Of interest union Of ncapaCy but one rra
preserve me peace u lall'a Nty'H"' sy0
for excluding me evidence in question rests hot mercy
on interest but upon much larger Of the relation existing
! between husband and wife
Now the New OK cite to your Honor Tn People
o. Mcrcein q Paige ob-eT atoms OF Chancellor
waworth Th case yotr Honor val recOlle-t Chancellor
| WalwOrth says:
"Thc wife il prohibited from being witness against er
husband upon the principle that the happiness Of the mar 81
relation requires that perfect confidence should suDs between
the husband and wife, that he may freely communicate win
her in relation his business and 70 oil the various ttaac-
tons Of h lie 10 the full assurance that she can never aoi
wards be compelled permitted 70 give evidence against
him his INJURY, to any matters thus communicated
This was AGBsls coTlS to relaters faherinaw. to bring
before REALTORS wife and child The wife was said to
be properly admitted prove acts OF cruelty by her husband
towards her but not his general character any other scon
duct
Judge Nelson Mr. Evarts, would be agreeable 70 you 70
suspend at this poin' II is now o'clock
Mr. Eyars-Qaite so.
The Court then took q recess unnil o'clock