New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-20

given IN evidence Mr.. Porter .hon proposed to read
the repy Of Mr. Bcceher bearing date August h. 1874 70
objected and that that rucd out upon the ground
that made BY Mr. Beoche to Mr. Monlton upon
this subject detailing the particulars OF what was sup
posed to be tho origin OF o breach Of their friend
ship, was not admissible that under tho pre-
tenoe Of . controversy between himself and MI
Beccher Mr. Beecher could not abcate declarations 81
introduce conyersaons between himself and the witness
which woald bear upon the main Issue In the controversy
Am not awsre that the letter which reference now made OF
Aust 1874 presented for discussion or oorder
,,on am not aware that any offer OF that letter oil
any objection taken 1t behalf The only oo]coou
which We made and the only oDjecaon "hNn
care now 10 make. Is to the letter OF August a'i
written By Mr. Beechcr to Mr. Mouon and II the objec'
OF the introduction letter OF August 9Th h to Introduce 10
evidence lay the foundation for presentation In eU
denoe OF the letter Mr. Docoher Of August 4h why thea
VIC object So far offered for the purpose Of prov
ing declarations made asented TO the part OF Mr. I'll
ton In 30 far declarations material TO the issue
perceive no objection TO Its introduction II seems to me
competent upon that ground but L de-ire 70
preserve the objection which was made yesterday and
upon which your Honor ruled the introduction In evidence
OF the letter OF Mr. Beeche Of August 4h stated yesterday
Sir what supposed TO the rule OF law without any specific
examination Of tho question in regard to the admsebJ OIL
the details Of controversies between witness and the party
against whom introduced for tho purpose OF proving the
presence Of malice nwl have just sent Sir have not
Boynon decided the Court OF Appeals, which appears In
the 43rd OF New York, at page $50:
behalf stated ON xsminaon that he he'd had litigation
with the defendant He was then asd h9T Tany o nc or a
below properly excluded SO maoa Oh uac n,lny a.
70 the Sc ,h OF s1on b. ms %ss no
solely in IL bearing upon credit due 70 the plaintiff a.
such an inquiry result In uRlnited examination OF he
previous litigation and in attempts TO indicate e de'cn'
positions occupied by the parties engaged IN IT,
The authority seems to me- Sir particularly applicable to the
present question Here the difficulties which aD supposed to
exist cau.ng arrangement and i'll feeling between the witness
and Mr. Beecher we're connected with the subject OF m
enton action and IT, in controversy between oe WI
ness and Mr. Beecher Mr. Beecher is permitted to make decr
atoas which material to the main ISSUE "hcn
directly Affects the interests OF Mr. Tilton in this
LITIGATION why your Honor will perceive that BY that mode
Of naulry upon collateral question Mr. Beecher Il permitted
to introduce his declarations to third party against US
when we were not present necessary, Sir you will per
NIT me- will look to the opinion which may be
fuller than tho marginal notes The opinion says Sir
1.-THE evidence proposed TO be given By the
was in way material pertinent to tho issue found between
he pares and which formed the subject Of the trial. IT. ma
inra consisted solely in its bearing upon the credit due TO
the plaintiff witness and was therefore, collateral In rs
nature Inquiries Of this character must necessarily be
limited and restricted in their nature, otherwise
the trial OF issues upon pleadiRgs would be often 60
o an the mind Of the called
TO decide them The object such inquiries Is to show that
| or Impulse, inconsistent with an impartial dis,
closure Of the truth Is not material mat de,a u
circumstances by means OF which that eohng may nave
been produced for the fact Itself is all that the case can re-
aure TO proved and all that the law will permit to be Shown
fhe discovery Of the motive under which the witness may a
the time be giving his evidence is the end and object
accomplished by the direct inquiry concerning Its
existence concerning the facs themselves ordinarily ndc
ing the of improper motives IL Is sceh 70 snow
that tue difficulty affecting his feelings and likely 70 influence
be given against aud that always be done without pursuing
detailed inquiry into the circumstances attending is develop
ment
That authority Sir very abundany s'sains the proposition
which submitted yOur Honor yesterday and which VIII Oe
at once recognized as law Now may be said Sir that this
letter OF Mr. Beecer OF August 4h necessarily came undet
the observation OF Mr. Tton the time he was engaged
mutually with Mr.. Moulton In preparing the reply
to that instrument. 1t will be for your Honor
consideration how far the rEesenaon Of that letter to Mr. Til
t6nf it was submitted to him. which does yet appear
and how far his acceptance reputation Of the statements OF
that letter may be admissible Certainly sufficient yet has MOI
been given allow the production Of that letter under tina.
aspect OF the question
Mr. Eyars-Th letter as understand it, is not objected tot
Judge Neilson-1he letter written joinliy'
Mr. Eyarts-Yes Sir
Mr. Beach, object that letter, Sir any part OF that
letter which in your Honours opnion you will be kind
enough scrunize twill lay any foundation for the intro
duction OF Mr. Beecher's letter.
Judge Neilson-So understand Sir
Mr. Eysrts-May read the letter :
Judge Neison-You liberty read the letter which
written jointly.