New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-11

eating the interview ~ an interview and giving such
testimony ~ pertinent to Other interviews that may
touch the Same subject matteE No witness has been IN
troduced to provo that Moulton has made contra
dictory out Of That situation does not
arise That Is not sufficient But that situation must ex
s before you can look around for the further aid OF intro
| ducing this kind Of evidence on the ground that
before O change Of attitude or relation wmch 10
supposed TO DO of the bias intervene the person
when free that relation spoke out OF
don't believe that any In this State VIII ever sus
tain the exception to that extent There is no case sus
tanning It, and there Is disposition TO sustain IT, But
Mrs Moulton has not changed her relation. she has
been tho wife OF Mr. MoultOn at oil times whch are EN-
braced by any proposed testimony now to be given The
imputation that sho teshcs under anothers VIII than
her own IA An mputacn that she testaes under the will
and nurpose OF her husband and he was her husband
during the whole period that Is sought to be brought In
review Of her extraudcia statements nut the testi-
mony II anything that comes from Mr. Beecher "a relied
upon must be limited to this particular inquiry Then
did sho say anything Of this kindi" This Is the
| question in respect to which his answer Is sup
nosed to contain an mputaton that will other than her
own has affected her testimony.
"Then did she say anything Of this kind 'Mr.
Beecher very sorry for you in TINS great trouble
fession and telling the truth cannot continue in this
life Of and md ae ,T' ns ySu IN
that wayi A. No. Sir was not IN aer nature 10 say
anything Of that kind, and she never dd-lai'er long
Now. what is the cause of imputaonl Why the i'm
putaton If anything is that she speaks Hder the
influence Of her husband. They don't show any state
ments Of hers out OF court ancceden TO the existence OF
that relation They don't show any change OF relation
on the part OF this witness toward the alleged bias to
wit her husbands will They don't show any. change
OF relation TO this matter at ALL what Moulfon has
been saying and doing what Mrs. Mouton has been say
ing and doing Just much question OF the influence
of the husband over wife at part OF their common
dealings at any other. You Introduce no change OF
relation 1t Is said that MOuon had an anmosy excited
as particular date Well that to be remarked upon
in its proper place. What he was doing, what he was
really doing the way Of statements to other people or
ON any minds that he influences shaping things forpr
poses then at that time in view, are NOT responsible
for: we have furnished him with any certificate OF
credit or freedom from the imputaion during this period
not In the least. We are finding out now, by the
aid Of a court Of justice, and under sworn testi
mony, In which they all have IN opportunity
to speak, what was going Oh gil the while.
Now. they undertook to prove what was going on
at particular time by the statement OF this married
to her uncle at the time. What change OF atti-
ude is therei Why, II your Honor please just look at
the proposition Parties go in matters Of contract or
matters OF conduct and there comes litigation and the
suit IL brought Then they differ Then they oppose one
another, and they oppose one another in testimony
And ii is suggested that II is competent Tor either OF
them cke his testimony against the other by show
ing that while they going on under the contract
and without quarrel in the conduct that becomes the
subject of controversy without quarrel they took the
same view of it, and expressed themselves TO
their neighbOrs In the same manner that they
bayo testified under oath. Where you
going to draw the line Parties oppose one
another in testimony frequently under present
system Of evidence. They, II Is said didn't nave that
opposition Of view until they came into court and before
they came into court there Is situation In which this
hostility exist and therefore this Is changed
relation when they come into court and therefore, what
either OF them said to his friends and neighbors out of
court before they got into the attitude OF hostility Is evil
dence Well now that is the old story whether you can
cOrroboate testimony In court by concurrDg statements
out Of court 1t pretended that you could do
that until you had contradcted under the rules OF evil
dence the in court not by statements in court
Of other witnesses but by statements out OF court by the
testimony of the witness whose testimony you mpugn and
then as I say there came up idea that yOu might
bring corroboratve statements of the testimony of
witness attacked. That has gone There Is
tense that that is the law of this state or OF England
now Then as say. there has been suggestion that H.
nv the old situation of contradiction out of court proved
against the witness under the rules OF evidence you
could odd element OF an imputaon OF an influence
that had spervcned or OF an attitude that had justified
or encouraged the present statement then the witness
thus attacked might fall back in limited degree upon
the old protection OF showing statements out OF court
before the alleged change OF attitude But that must be
change not disposition of the witness, not situa
ton merely ante Item mOtum. That has never
been presented for that would bring you
UP to the situation that all the parties are in before they
disagree would break up entirely by the rule OF evil
dence that has carefully guarded about hearsay
Mrs MoultOn the wife Of Mr.. MOuton. Moilton was
the friend OF Tilton Mouton the manager of this
nterest and attitude Of Tlton through the entire period
as well as when they into litigation, and there Is
no pretense that there change Of situation except
change Of disposition. II you please and change OF dis
position not permitted TO be the basis Tor the introdc
ton OF any such evidence
Now, the section OF Taylor, which think is taken
bodily from Grcenlesf, is this:
Where evidence OF contradictory statements. OF
other improper conduct the part of witness, has
been either elected from him on cross a or
ing his veracy his general character for truth being
thus in sort put In issue, 1t has been deemed reason
able to admit general evidence that he Is OF strict
integrity and scrupuous regard for truth But evidence
to what testified in the is not admissible
less could be charged with desire to misrepresent In
in which case IL may proper show that he has made
o SIM lar statement before that relation existed.
Not that there Ia disposition now which has enlisted
witness on either side OF the controversy and that for
merry had not that dispositions but when 1t Is I'm
puted that his relation to the party or to the case in
which 1t may be proper to show that he has made sim
liar statement before that statement existed but Mrs.
MOuOns relation to the party (Ton) and to the case
between these parcs-tO wit her relation IA wife Of
Mouton-remains the during all the stages Of this
transaction That Is ALL believe Of this section that
applies to this subject.
Now, in the Of King agt. Parker. Sd OF Douglass
Butler, Justice, said: "That the evidence clearly
inadmissble not being upon oath and that whether
Fowler expressed himself by words or by signs and ges
lures made difference. As to the other ground, he
said that the information Of Fowler not read evil
dence for the defendant but II 1t had 1t settled
that what witness said not upon oath would not be ad
United to confirm what he said upon oath and that the