New-York tribune., 1875-02-17
ANOTHER EFFORT TO GET THE SWORN STATE
MENT BEFORE THE JURY.

Mr. Fullerton-Your Honor having rejected the
third and paragraphs Of the statement OF Mr.
Tlton with reference to the question put to him, make
| an offer of them.
Mr. Eyarts-I submit to your Honor that you have ruled
upon the question OF the written paper and is not necessary
that any part Of should be read to your Honor Your ruling
was upon grounds quite irrespective OF anything that is
in It, and must object to its being read
Mr. Beach-Your Honor has passed upon that question
twice. tho habit Of the counsel both sides
to do this
Mr. Eyas-No not where the Court passes upon rrespec
tive OF anything that In the paper There is possible
ground for reading anyh when the question IA passed upon
grounds irrespective Of the content and It is not pertinent
TO the point Of inquiry.
Mr. BcaOh-ow shall that it is not pertinent, without
making offer OF the pspers
Mr.. Evarts-Whenever you make your bill OF exceptions
then yOu introduce it,
Mr. FulertonThe bill Of exceptions will be made by you,
spprehend Qsughter)
Mr. Evarts-I only advising you when you will have
opportunity OF introducing it, if want to do so when you
make your bill OF exceptions you can then use it,
Mr. BeachTh question Sir; 1t has been passed
upon at different times.
Judge Neison-The objection that the ruling is based
on anything contained paper but is independent Of It's
contents and therefore 1t is not necessary to read it.
Mr. Beach-Can not make an offer Of proof, Sir?
Mr. Eyarts-You are under tho direction OF the Court
Mr. Beach-Therefore the Cour. it prohibits from
making offer OF proof
Judge Nelson other instances where papers
cned certain clauses the papers referred to to point
the exception
Mr.. Beach, would like to know your Honor please
whether it il be ruled that cannot make an oder Of
proof
Judge Neilson-I think you can.
Mr. Evarts object counsel reading part Of this paper
which your Honor has excluded
Nj Beach, not reading anything; am going to make
an offer OF proof.
NJ Lat sep nsGl o
proposition The has said that your Honor having
cuded the third and fourth paragraphs Of the sworn statement
lie now proposes TO read then
Judge Neilson-He proposes to make certain o1es
Mr. Beach-Your Honor will please to recoect that per
med them regard 10 the True Statement 10 read the
whole Of II in sections and offers prove " You did the
same thing 10 regard the Woodruff story You have done
it
Judge Neison-In regard to the Woodruff scandal
Mr. BeachYe.; and regard to the Biography OF Mrs
woodruff by Mr.. Tlton.
Mr. PulertOn-And although was then ruled ont, was
embraced In the form Of offers by the learned counsel
Mr. Ryarts-I prepared discuss thesc propositions In
the rs place what might have seemed an evasion OF the rule
vs introduced by my learned friends when they were going on
with their When was proposed to read from the Wood
hull Life ruled out the ground thai the plaintiff
could no, be held responsible for opinions expressed in
Moorapa, any more than historso Therefore upon my
introduced parts oil but those which
nurnoed 10 express the individual opinions Of this witness Of
Nrs Woodbul and and Aked him the distinct
poposton whether these his sentiments; and IN thai
eh and In that light alone the passagen were introduced
with reference 10 the Woodruff scandal had . rgh.
to prove, after it had been offered on the di
rec, examination thoy having said that the woodruff
scandal and the Woodruff story made subject Of dscus
siou between Moulton and Beeche and Tton- had what
thought was gh, thereby prove the Woodruff story
And you Honor limited that part OF Is thai could pro-
duos AZ being the subject OF consideration before them and
adhered to that. Now Sir the Last thai Of my proving
BY this witness destroyed paper Having proved It's dssuc
t.on and that copy preserved then read TO him and
ssked him that not part OF the paper Ii direct
proof Il was mode Of proof which allowable by the Law
IN respect 10 destroyed paper And that has nothing
with tha
NJ Fulerton-How about the Clarke letter
Nj Ryars-That has been ruled out.
Mr. FuIerton-but you reed part OF ii.
Evarts-I asked him whether THAI submitted 10 ham
AZ q matter Of treaty and negotiation by Mr.. Clarke
M BeschYou ssked him he did not make cetssn state
mense which you read from the Clarke letter.
Mr. Bvats-I aeked him twofoh question and had
fold object asked whether he had the Clarke letter. and
he said that Ire could not say II he had not, and he
could not say II he had I then asked him concerning
the Clarke letter, and things that were. matter Of
fact In the Clarke letter. and only snchwhether those propo
stons made to him by Clarke aud the subject Of
negotiation matter Of fact to the abandonment OF The
Golden Age giving II up this that and the other so
that has nothing to do with this question Now here docu
psSh p3ss and spdss99d, SYsA SeI ssa sS 10 "a! "