New-York tribune., 1875-02-18

the plaintiff In tho progress OF this ca~ 10 Introduce written
scs proceeding from either party the opposite party bad oc
They permitted either party show the reception
By the other party Of Communications through third persons.
and thereby npue either BY Affirmative connessd evidences
or by such conclusions tho law would dra* from tbs
reception without response, such consequences ~
came to the opposite part from TINS receiving letters
from third persons The rule about husband and wifs inter
anterior the point Of suspicion discovery Whes
aside from that question II terminates undoubtedly as By
very wo considered opinion. in the Courts OF Kings Bench
the fu bench, settled the common sense OF the
matter would terminate upon the occeon OF neIruptic
not by concealed adulteryhat hst not interrupted but
suspicion disclosure tho be OF an actual or
suspected. though not actual adultery.
kr Beach-Wel. you give me the reference. Sir
Mr. Eyars-The case OF Trawney Coleman. In the first
OF Bmwe and Adophus by Lord Eea5oroush AMI Jdsces
| Abbott, Baylc aud Heiro5d:
"d that what tho husband and vito say TO zach
other AMI how they conduct essn oe Ms
together Is admissible in the action of cI1 co7 tooas
letters written each ether during abrnce ae ao sd
each other il ali suspicious Of coSSon removed and
sufficient this point II the letters are proved 70 have en
was entertained Of the wie's misconduct"
Mr. Besch-That case cited Sir in GreenleI Ia the para
| graph which read in support OF my position
Mr. Evss-Nov the Bng.h referred to by my learned
friend upon this point case at Md Fftrs before
Justice Coleridge and has not the authority OF this
cited And this letter which we have g'sa
in evidence subsequent to this date Of suspicion disclosed
excited is tue Cahane Giunt letter. as 1t Is called Ihs
plantlu put IN uhteu uoSehr' ~
fcrrng this novel of GrgM G0'St and another letter.
think having reference Of December e 1866 Per
! haps bo b are not in the fret one is
Nov We examine in reference to this matter OF
the Griffith letter first connection with disclosure
concerning that letter which contained in Ms WoodhnHs
publication in newspaper being part OF that line OF In
qury followed by aud exhausted by which the o-
sponsiciy for be disclosures sossht to be charged
upon the plntif and Mr. Moulton, and they do
pryed OF tho credit of having endelyocd to suppress
| In tha
| this part. [Reading j
80 Now, Sir. do you know how Mrs Woodhul got hef
reference in her article to tho Catherine Ggnnt eef as
called. whiod your wife wro;o you A. doat -Aho" "hA'
" II taeo is such reference do you know she 60.
it '"N
Then he goes on snd finally is asked
"Thcn. as far you know il there Is reference in
letter wife don't know how she GScs%e % posSc,@d @
he became possessed of she got possessed OF te otet
particulars through circumstances loains to her ear through
And thus aoating they mast have originally started from
your references 70 te Cathesao Gain5 le,ieT A. AnyG.
originally from mo- because that letter wa" written !" me-
| @ That is exactly what want to know"
| my question: then his answer,
"But I did not state 1t 10 Mrs. Woodruff
Then this witness having published the Catherine Gsun
letter. published it a complete form then introduce t
as part Of positive proof in that connection, and with
| that intent Please look at that letter and say II
that Is the Catherine Gaunt letter, socasd 1"-it being
a printed PAGE "what Is that" Mr. Fullerton says
offered connection with his publication OF In an I'M
perfect form and pa in evidence to prove that fact OF It's
imperfect condition as compared with his publication OF Il
having gone that inquiry which your Honor VIII re
member with effect orwhat result in that connection 10
mortan for slider Chat will be reserved for
my upon the evidence when the evidence properly
competcdl thon | put in, the 9Th OF February the
Catherine letter calling attention in putting into tho
differences between produced In its actu condition. and
that in which It had been published by the witness exam
ned him concerning that and they pat afterwards Think
the section his satemen. Sole suggestion to Mr.
Eyarts by Mr. Abbst Oh, yes; they did not take up thd
Gaunt loe 1t the other letter They did not put thai
n they put section referring the Sd OF February
letters Now that letter having been thus Introduced upon
strictes direcest rules OF evidence part OF
showing by him from his wife and dealt with
by him In certain manner OF dealing wth pnDcaton OF @
gument or defence OF his it claimed that there is
opened to them right to put In evidence letters be-
tween the wife and and himself irrespective Of any connection
with auson the Catherine Gsunt letter In connection
ground that letter has been put in by me-
which had right IL you peasehaying right. you please
10 put in all that connect with him by his dealing with them
that that gives them right to put in letters OF his received
| by him from his wife with which the defendant,
whom represent, has relation Of notice or in
formation concerning the letter. and thus the imputation
upon party whom represent failing give any credit to 1t
evidence against Now II that IL not as profound
contempt Of the distinction between the laws Of evidence that
do permit people introduce transactions OF their own and
their side although the oher SIDE can DO o ana aougn
other side has done cannot understand the PROPOSE
tons that are submitted in the textbooks, in the
authorities, that argued in court! Now, the
only point by which connected letters come IN thus
Where letters and correspondence between the plaintiff and
defendant offered in evidence by the former was held
that the latter might read his answer to the plaintiff last let
dated the day peyous And where party produces
OF another purporng TO be in reply to previous
himself hes bound to call for and put in the Letter
to which it par. Of his own evidence"
That is that there being brought IN one slettes then
the letter which alludes TO- letter which replies
makes part OF itself may be required then be
put part the evidence Of the party Offering the first
letter But, aside from that there right the part Of the
opposite party put letter that is reply letter that
has been put in. That h follows that Now Honor
please could make that paner
it me, aud o. only follow my instruc
ons any views that present TO Honor despair OF
making that PLAIN it does no, strike your experienced
attention. Now, friend, departing from PROPOSE
ton Of right Qor need say that all Of
liens might given evIdence confidential communications
between these parties mig be given In evidence this
be given in evidence. Now, my friend departs from
that and undertakes appeal what he considers discretion
your Honor. Well your Honor please what discretion s
there invade rule Of evidence TO small extent and not
large That is not the proposition lie must then
lay 1t down a proposition OF law that party has
right give evidence correspondence between himself
third party with which the opposing party TO the suit
connected In any either BY writing receiving
hearing knowing Of il the Jadge thinks beet in the
ests Of justice. Now my learned friend find such
proposition OF law that But apprehend there the
possible basis for appeal in the interest Of fairness
justice and Of right when IL proposed to your Honos
| In the trial OF O case where this lsdy's mouth 10
closed by law word Of explanation word Of scg
geson OF facts word Of suggestion Of the modes and
and circumstances in which letter as written "a tyi
ege largely avaed Of by this witness In explanation OF hin
letters when ssSh word can be heard from this woman
L .h.-