New-York tribune., 1875-05-14
proper way to lay the foundation for his collateral i'm
peaohment BY calling tha whom he made the

peaohment by calling ths wness to whom he made tho
statement; there Is nothing in the situation-
Mr.. Beach-That Ia not the ground OF objection. Sir
the objection Is that this entirely collateral matter
upon which Mr. Woodruff examined. The rule has
been too often discussed before your Honor to require re-
iteration now
Mr. Evarts-Mr. Woodruff was recalled 70 contradict
Gen Tracy and at least party-whoy. perhaps the last
time, and have asked him. In reduction OF his ev
dence whether he did say and out Of court to
Mr. southwick He says he did not Now, We bring Mr.
Southwick TO say that he did.
Mr.. Beach-weI that is a most unmeaning statement,
Sir of the condition Of this objection and evidence offered
We called Mr. Woodruff to contradict Mr. Tracy In regard
to material matters. They then crcssexaInined Mr.
Woodruff in regard to those supposed declarations made
to Mr. southwok in regard TO collateral matter and now
object that they concluded by the answer which Mr.
Woodruff gave that these declarations in regard to this
$1,000 where from has sort of reference
materiality to the issue.
Judge Nesou-well. think Mr. Evarts will agree with
you that that animation it
me
Mr. shearman-weil. Mr.. southwick-I Will take your
answer.
Mr. Beach-No, you won't
Judge NesOn-No; won't take the answer
Mr.. shearman-I beg your Honor's pardon: thought
you said the question was TO be answered
Judge NeilsOn-NO; when you come TO something that
is vital will proceed.
Mr. shearman-I take it, your Honor, that this subject
brought in connection with Mr.. Tracy's evidence
Mr. Tracy having testified that it in respect to this
matter relating to this 5000 then he went into this
question which cognate to that.
Judge Neson-There question about the b, 900
Mr.. Shearman-That is the whole point the whole
question between Mr.. Tracy and Mr.. Woodruff was
whether the conversation related to $500 or $1,000
Mr. Evarts-That is the point Of our evidence.
Judge Neson-Anything that will illustrate that would
be proper
Mr. shearman-wtth all Difference we think this does
illustrate IL.
Judge Neilson-Ask him whether anything said
about the $1,000.
Mr. Shearman-Exacty hut he asked him whether the
money referred TO and spoken of money that came
from MI Beecher, and at the same time that we claim
conversation had with Mr. Tracy. and propose to
show that Mr. Souhwick heard this statement about the
S. 600 at this tme and To show that Mr. Woodruff is
unable recolect with any kind of accuracy, without
mputing anything further to him. what he did toll Mr.
southwick about the So 900, and that ground we
claim that he is mistaken in has impression To what he
told Gen Tracy.
Judge NesOn-Well, there two separate interviews
Mr shearman-There two separate interviews. but
they the time. claim and our evidence
is that they were the same day.
Mr.. Beach-NOw. Sir. the proposition IL avOwed ana
discussed that they put this question to Mr. Woodruff and
proposed this contradiction to Mr. Woodruff upon sep
arate and distinct show that his recollection
faulty that transaction. and from that 10 argue
that 1t faulty in regard t0 the transaction that
occurred with Mr.. Tracy.
Mr.. shearman-The matter that Say
Mr.. Beach-No, Sir.
Mr.. shearman-WeIl, say that is your evidence.
Mr. Beach-No. Sir nothing upon the subject. for moth
ing said in regard to the 500 in the conversation
with Mr SOuthwick they did not propose that.
MIR. shearman-The gentleman is begging the question
Mr. Reac HI lam ne 10 | "A
O fact They propose TO prove faulty recollection IN
regard fact for the purpose OF i'm
peaching recollection LII regard to another
Mr.. Shearman-Gen. Tracy is asked crossexalnina-
ton whether he had conversation with Mr. Woodruff
about the 800 He in effect he had
a conversation only at the time the $1,000 were paid
and on the very day that money was paid. Now
we ask Mr. Woodruff. Mr.. Woodruff comes on to con
radict Mr. Tracy on that point and he says he dd not
talk with him about the $4,000, but did talk with him
about the $500 ask Mr. Woodruff whether he did not
on the very day which Gen Tracy testilcs that
he had this conversation with him. speak 10 Mr SOuthwich
on the subject OF the $1,000, and then question Mr.
Woodruff as to his recollection of that conver
sation. 1t differs entirely from the recollection
of the witness whom put upon the stand. and
having given Mr. Woodruff opportunity to set that
right claim the right to show that his recollection of
what happened that very day when he had convcr
sation with Tracy entirely inaccurate and con
hrming Cen Tracys conversation with him the very
same subject concerning which Mr. sOuthwick talked
Now isn't that legitmatef The subject Is the the
principal party to the conversation is the same.
Judge Nelson-And the day is the same.
Mr. Shearman-Ihe day is the same the only differ
ence is that Nj. southwck and the other is Mr.
Tracy.
Mr. Beach, don't know. Sir whether the last word is
to control in this matter; am Obectng 10 evidence; We
have discussed ii; have presented my views to You;
gentleman insists having apparently the last Of
the argument Now, can only repeat Sir, that there
are two distinct conversations relating to distinct and
different subject, and the proposition Is 10 prove Mr
woodrus faulty recollection in regard TO the conversa
ton with Mr. Tracy, by proving, if yon please that
inaccurate. that he talked upon the same subject
with Mr.. s0utnwck, and without offering to prove
that what he said to Mr. SOuthwick was untrue
Mr. Tracy swears that he had no conversation upOn u
given day with Mr. Woodruff in regard 10 $500, that
related 10 the S. 900 Mr.. Woodruff swears that upon
that day he did communicate Mr.. Tracy information
regarding $500 and that it did not relate 10 the $1,000
Now they propose to by Mr Southwek that upon
that same day Mr.. Woodruff had a converse
ton with him regard to the s. 900 and what he said
And they propose prove that for the purpose OF in
ferrng or reasoning from it that because Mr. Woodruff
spoke OF a S. 900 that day in conversation with Mr.
southwck that therefore he must have spoken OF 1t in
conversation Mr. Tracy and that is the sort OF
gument, your Honor please, by which this evidence
upon an entirely collateral conversation is sought to be
given.
Judge Neilson-I think we cannot take IL, Mr. Shear
man. il is collateral matter and If there were contra
dietion, 1t is upon collateral matter which Is OF no
moment to us.
Mr. shearman-No moment except to the question Of
the
Mr. Blackwell now, object to further argument
on the question.
Mr. shearman-wel when the Court makes further
suggestion, have a right -
Judge Neilson-It is of no moment that MI Tracy ana
Mr. Woodruff had not agreed that collateral question
That is Of moment at all.
Mr. Shearman-Well, we except
- >ousor-T think 7 ,pnst clude