New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-07
JUDGE NELSON ADMITS THE CIRCUM-
STANCES.

Judge Neilson--In cases of this character, as
mtimated at earlier stages OF this the correspond
ence between the husband and the wife, and her CORE
spondence with other persons, is deemed admissible,
either introduced by the plaintiff TO show the har-
mony his household and to indicate what lost In the
supposed disturbance; on the other hand, the de-
fcndant equally at liberty to show, by correspondence
md conversations prior TO the supposed oense want
of harmony and disturbed household; all OF which
goes TO the mere question whether the plaintiff in the
supposed disturbance, assuming 1t to have occurred,
assuming the wrong to have occurred-whether the
plaintiff really suffered much damage; and as
have on one occasion ntimaed that class of evidence
goes TO the question Of damage understand that TO be
tAe niOn OF the law Of evidence; and one reason
why acts aud correspondence and conversations prior to
the supposed ocnse to be received showing the con-
dtion OF the household which the plaintiff alleges to
have disturbed, and therefore characerzDg the
damages either az great little. And as to events and
conversations and acts subsequent the alleged offence,
the law makes marked distinction and for very obvi
Gus reaso still, where the defendant is charged
with improper conduct alleged here 10 have taken place
in October AMI divers days afterwards think he is
al liberty In reference 10 any interviews with this lady
at any time state what occurred and to be nterro
gated as to what did not Perhaps the general
statement would IT. and yet the learned counsel
as Mr.. Beach TO cOncede, might II be deemed 1t
necessary inquire particularly as to each interview But
that the conversation can be received THERE'S
authority OF law nor rule or evidence nor pi1nCpe,
that would admit it, As, for example, intimated the
other day when wife abandOns her house and deter
live apart her declarations made at the time of
leaving part Of the act and may be received In
evidence in her favor TO show why she left but II is be-
it is part OF the act and proceeds the same
principle that and conversations may be received
TREY part Of the 0eStr but the wife,
having left her home is absent for days and weeks
then has conversation in the absence OF the plaintiff
cannot conceive that is admissible. And moreover
this rule saves, in my judgment, the rights Of the de-
PENDANT perfectly. II leaves him at liberty to refer
any interview at which he met this lady, and without
giving the conversation (which could not be evidence
and ought not to influence the jury, of cOurse
what occurred and therefore what did not occur and
thereby help upon the question OF guilt or limo
cence the only question that really and to
that extent think will allow the communication but
only 10 that extent.
Mr. Evarts-I will proceed within your Honors ruling,
and then raise my point in the form Of question ITO
the witnessl Mr. Beecher, do you remember what time
OF day this visit vast A. No Sir.
O. Was in the hours Of daylight in the EVENING" A..
Yes, Sir.
O. 1t was in the hours Of daylight A. 1t in day
light
O Now was the subject or occasion Of that interview
suggested 70 YOU, or suggested by youi A. To me.
Mr. Fulerton-One moment; did not understand the
question. Was the sufJect'--
Mr. Evarts-Was the subject occasion suggested to
him or by hun flo the witness 1t was suggested to
youi A. Yes, Sir.
suggested to youf
ANOTHER FIGHT OVER THE INTERVIEW
Mr.. Fullerton-That comes within our OBJ
lection Sir, and your Honor's ruling.
Mr. Evarts-I think not II your Honor please.
Mr. Morris-That calls for what was said TO him.
NJ EvsrtThs point that We have In Wow and about
r..H Ia