New-York tribune., 1875-02-18
AHArp TECHNICAL QUESTION DISCUSSED.

Mr.. Evarts-These letters that are now proposed
u.s. being letters from Mrs Tton TO her husband are not
referring any letters that have been introduced upon
part they letters that have been communicated
Mr Beccher regard to which he has relation That
proposed And they OF date, in July S1l and
the other may be assumed late in 1872 though there is only
memorandum Of that date suppose that considered TO be
correct And they after the alleged cause OF complaint on
the part this husband against Mr. Beeche made the subject
OF this action and admissible under any rules Of
evidence being entirely passages between himself and his wife,
admissible in the light In which the other passages have
introduced to wit Of the condition Of their family relations
before the occurrence.
Judge Neson-The rule as understand is that In action
Of this kind show the relation OF family the dohestc hap
pness or unhappness plaintiff may put in evidence
respond ence prior to the alleged event.
Mr. Eyarts-Yes Sir.
judge Neilson-Or to the knowledge Of it.
Mr Eyarts-Or to the knowledge OF it,
Judge Neison-And the other side may put IN letters also
tina, would combat the suggestion Of peaceful household
think limit there, stated in the books-pror to the
knowledge Of the ofense.
Mr. Evsrts-Itis very well settled believe.
Judge Neison-Isn't 1t, Mr. FGlertoni
Mr. Pulerton-i think not Sir that IL subject 70 some
ceptons They have introduced letter. believe, ,nce
the event.
Mr. Eysrts-Yes objected That IL another matter
Mr. Fullerton-Thst iorccloses the other side.
Mr. Beach-They did object the character OF
evidence
nd
Mr. Puerton-Ceainy They have introduced part Of it,
Mr. Eyarts-Tha don't iorecose in the least objcctng
10 letters they don't object letters There was any
rpe Of evidence that kind They find advantage by
having them in
Nj Beach-Certanly,
Mr. PullertoaNow, this rule yoHr Honor hs stated IT,
you will perceive does apply the question before the
Court because the defense in this have introduced part
OF the correspondence ssce the alleged OF complaint
Tbey have done that and they have exposed themselves 10 the
balance Of the correspondence between the parties during that
period Hisv very plain, Sir that entitled to this cor
| respondence.
letters, Mr.. Eyarts.
Mr. Rvat-Why your Honor they cannot give the letters
IN evidence any way We give In evidence anything that
af Gets this plaintiff they not Their right TO introduce in
evidence letters between husband and wife ont OF their
their right relations between them before the invasion
or knowledge OF the invasion OF the domestic
purity That 10 the only way. On the face
Of the matter they have no right to give in
evidence from TO the other but on the face OF the
matter right give In evidence anything that affects
this opposite party That s the dcuy They overlook
that fact General rules OF evidence allow us TO affect him with
letters as the general rules Of evidence allow them TO affect
Mr. Beeeher special rule special motive permits
The interchange between husband and wife, Of observed
aemeanor or Of letter. 10 be brought in &c part Of the
domestic conju2a relation which may be thus proved Now
letters within that ule that seems 10 be conceded
Then they brought under general proposition Of
the law evidence enables them put in evidence letters
between their party and third person' Now there nothing
IN the proposition that because have given etters be-
tween the year 1870 and 1874 whenever have given them
ITO Mr. sbesrman.l What have we glveRi
Mr. Shearman-0ne in 1911.
Mr. Fulerton-Seversl
Mr. Mous-Is69.
Mr. Evsrts-isG9 Is prior.
M Pryor-The law Il TO knowledge; is to the
There is authority for in any book anywhere.
Mr.. Evarts-0b yes.
Mr. Pryor-Gve authority
Judge Neison-My impression has been that way.
Mr. Pyor-No, Sir II is not 1t Is the date Of the event
M Pulerton-Subsequent 10 the event.
Judge NesOnThe It becomes known to the party
Mr. Pryor-No Sir.