New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-13

,cnde, favor NJ greater or Less degree Mr. Beecher IN
some action which he took concerning some dimcuy "h
enconpassed a OF Mr. Beecher. Mr. Triton mas d''ca'
any particular merit on OF that sevce has said tha'
Mr. Beecher expressed gratitude to him than the sei
deserved Now Is not purely collateral matter ana arc
we TO examine regard that issue to whether the
was greater or less on the part Of Mr.. Tltonf
Judge Neilson-Ceranly not.
Mr. Beach-And counsel that this examination
this point only with reference to that service submit W
your Honor that It is incompetent.
Mr. Evarts- difficult for II your Honor please, 10 I'M
dersand the appropriateness OF the phrase COLLATERAL ny
piled 10 inquiry into relations between Mr. Triton ana MI
Beecher II Is collateral may be unmportant or subsd!
or h not collateral Collateral inquiries are wneh
witness who only witness il inquired OF respecting "'
IA in the nature Of mpachng imputaon and In regau W
them you take his answer as collateral ana 90 no'
pursue It. That il because you cannot try causes oe
tween other people Bat all that reasoning anu A'
the authority and the doctrines OF the law nave
no application to the question whether or not TINS
the life OF Mr. Ton and Mr. Beecher as towards each oe
IL or is not the proper subject inquiry Now it being matter
in the cause and between parties the question whether OF
no we are liberty show by this witness wha the
ton was the question as whether II Is compee". "
show by any witness and not conclndcd py MI ~
toms version OF the transaction There nothing In MI III
toms testimony that imports absolute verify or closes our
mouths against the production OF witnesses concerning any
matter that the proper subject Of proof In the cause now
this incident furnishes particular and important por'oho ~
sentiments and relations Of Mr. Beechcr towards Mr. linton
whether nghtfuy wronguly has nothing to DO WIN inc
question. IL matter in which, as has been SHOWN ny INC
testimony Mr. Bceher regarded himself as under great oog
tons to Mr. ton and Mr. Tton has disclamed the magh
OF the obligation, though he has not shared inc se
with anybody else that have understood
Judge Nelson--IIe was not inquired OF as 10 that'
Mr. Evarts-I am not mputing any error to hi or anf
am only stating his testimony Is Now, this gentleman 10
asked to give that conducted by Mr. Triton he
feuhe
Mr. ton and this gentleman in regard to those nearer na
tiers OF this affair which proper evidence We have tu
TINT the present inquiry limited to what passed between MI
lton and witness concerning this affair oi M Deee
1t is not loose and general conversation concerning oh'
matters is very brief affair and 1t is an element INK III
our testimony We regard IT as important ltis not con"'
era It is direct and competent evidence My learned as
socae Mr. Abbott refers to the OF Carpenter ana
Wall Goth OF NewYork recognizing the rule that aei
brought out by statement Of plaintiffs witness on direct may
be contradicted material not That is an sd
tiona bearing OF the inquiry
Mr. Beach-It is the first time have understood or 'a'
the law confined the definition OF collateral issues to those cub
jects which were inquired Of the Impeachment or attempted
impeachment Of witness There main issue, and perhsps
more in every is in the language OF the ge
man. unimporant subsidiary to that is In the sense OF inc
law collateral Whatever does not bear essentially upon 'he
true issue determined by the jury collateral This acoh
involves as the principal issue the question Of the seduction by
the defendant OF the plaintiffs wife II competent as part
perhaps of that issue, inquire into the relations winch
existed between the conending parties and possibly ther
families That may be regarded material portion OF inc
main inquiry in the action, Now so far a. any
incident OF kind which the attention Of this gentemehs
directed reflects upon the relation Of the parties the terms OF
confidence respect aud intercourse why may very wei De
REGARDED as competent upon the main issue OF the although
this transaction remote in period so far from the occur
rences connected with the main issue that 1t might well De
doubted whether has any relevancy to that issue in cone
ouence Of that remoeness But Sir suppose 1t had been
proved either upon the direct crosexamnaton that Mr.
Tion and Mr. Beeche in the year 1884, had business Trans
action an exchange Of property 5 any oh 81 the ordinary
affairs OF business intercourse would not that submit 10
your Honor be collateral main issue far as the details
OF that transaction are concerned, and would De
competent trial OF this character, TO enter into al exa
nation OF all mnue Of business affair between those
parties that remote period OF time! don't ecoIect s
whether the attention OF Mr. Tion first directed TO this
subject upon the direct the ana SHOULD
prefer the minutes OF the stenorapher upon mat
point unless some my associates recoec had the idea
Sir that it disclosed IN the fret instance
Mr. MorrsIt referred incidentally the direct too
Mr. Beach-Rcierred incidentally the direct By the in
PRODUCTION Of letter Of Mr. Beecher expressing gratitude 70
Mr.. Tlon FOX the service he rendered in that matter
Judge Misunderstanding him present OF an inksIand
Mr. Beaeh-Ye Sir sending present Of an inksand. and
that was purpose Of introducing the kindly relations
which then existed between these parties am corrected
by my associates the fact OF the introduction OF that let
ter introduced upon the part OF the defense under
stand.
Mr. Morrs-And they went into PARTICULARS you recoec as
TO the
Mr. BeachI there was any reference in the direct examlna
ton OF Mr. Tton 10 Transaction it very ind-tinct
and remote None of the details inquired Of on the part
of the plaintiff and all that said material upon that suoeo
was upon the Now submit TO your Honor
that this is entirely collateral and very remote trahsac
on which reflect no light upon the main and maeria
issue in the case and they having made Mr. Tton principal
witness upon that subject il is competent TO conradc!
him. and therefore submit Sir that the proposed evidence Is
incompetent.
Judge Neison-Mr Hill, will You state distinctly what you
expect prove
Mr. Ill-Yes, Sir.
Mr. Beach, understood Mr. Hill to avow that 1t was ene
" with reference to that event.
Mr. Hill expect this transaction which has been
referred to- which have been talking about mere The service
which Mr. Ton rendered at that time actually occurred
y the parties who concerned in IT. mean actually upon
the ground.
Mr. Beach-Then, Sir, ii will resolve
Mr. Shearman-Wait, Sir we have not nsled
Mr. Hi-And propose also show SIR how that transae
ton was represented Mr. Beecher and thus showthus lay
foundation for showing Of Mr. Beechers feeling at
later period with reference MI Ton and With reference to
his correspondence which they put in evidence.
Mr. Beach-Then the question resolves itself into this Sir
that they introduce from Mr. Beecher expressing graft
tud TO Mr. Tton this supposed service and they pro-
pose to show that service rendered. or that the ex
tent of it was misreprcscned to Mr Beeche caingas an
nducement to expressions which he used in that letter
They proved the letter themselves and now propose to ho"
that the foundation upon which the letter written was mac
curate
Judge Nelson-Mr Tl,on did not in his testimony state
what he did in Washington give any details about it,
or refer 10 this gentleman having met him. give other
indication regard it, except that he went in reference
to that subject and very PLAIN to that ii not the
proper subject of inquiry, that 1. not material Suppose
this gentleman Washington rendered the service would
be mnaerial offer such inquiry must rule out that
much f his evidence II YOU can prove anything