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

Mr.. PryOr-If your Honor please, as an alb
soute and universal rule, that the consistent deeiars
lions of witness out Of court admissible TO cor
roborae his testimony under oath. is proposition which
we do not affirm and which is not involved In the offer
of evidence make. The proposition for which Wa
contend and by virtue Of which We maintain the 4mls-
siby OF the evidence offered, is precisely and critically
this that whrn the testimony OF witness u lmpnynrd
nv the incubation that it l. fabrication the
product OF special interest or influence Lat thsh
is competent prove, the case, that the witness
told the story prior the date Of the supposed abrir-
ton and in the other that he made the statement before
the existence OF the imputed interests or influence This.
Sir is our proposition and ii Is proposition maintained
by abundant authority maintained by the teachings OK
all the text-writers and by the uniform language OF he
courts, notably OF own state Thus, sir, '" ID
Evans in his valuable commentaries upon 'Potber ON
Obligations Of the cearest and most pho-
sophca writer's upon the law Of evdence-empoys tho
following language quote from page 2s9 OF the ELI
| ton OF 1906:
One OF the cases which are mentioned exceptions TO
the general rule the exclusion Of hearsay evidence Is
where il IL addnced 10 show the testimony given by
a witness upon the trial Is consistent Win ms declare
is and t Is doubtful whether u oe
reply According 20 the principles Of correct
already referred to- must depend upon the nai"
of the object intended 10 attain In an ordinary ease
the evidence would be at least superb oS FOR the as
sertions "a witness 10 be regarded IN general a.
ing them as false; wllch reason may he repealed
by circumstances showing that the motive upon
could %it not have had existence az the time
when the previous relation was made ana when tnere-
fore epels the upposon Of the fact eated being after
duet may result either from the inherent nature ana app
The innutatons ACTUALLY thrown out the
inaon or otherwise, by the opposite party IL witness
speaks to facts negativng the existence OF contract
and nsnuaons are thrown that he has near con
nection with the party on whose behalf ne appcars mat
a change OF market, or an alteration OF circumstanc
has excited an nducement TO recede from deliberate
engagement, the proof by unsuspiclos teslony ina,
q similar account was gwen when the contract had
every prospect OF advantage, removes the imputa-
tions resulting from the opposite e'ren an,,
the same level which would have had II the motives
for recedng from the previous intention had never eN
sted Upon accusations OF rape, where the having failed
to mention the circumstance for eonsi.nrape time, IA
PEELED disclosure Of the fact upon the first apparent
opportunity after its commission and the apparent state
OF mind OF the party who suffered the injury are always
regarded as admissible and the evidence VI them
stanty admitted without objection
To the same effect sarkie in his work upon Evidence
marginal page 253 after combating the general propo-
stion that consistent declarations of witness out OF
court are admissible to cOrroboratc his testimony under
oath, says:
But although such evidence be not generally admissf
bic confirmation OF witness, there may Do eases
sdmssibs a. for Instance in Contradiction o evidence
tending show that the account was fabrication OF
late date and where becomes material 70 snow mat tbe
same account had been given before its ultimate effect
and operation arising RON change OF circumstances
And Mr. Phillips In his work on Evidence says-but
the book is here will send for IL, and meanwhile
read another authority.
Mr. Powell in his treatise upon Evidence propounds
the rule even more broadly aud absolutely marginal
paper sol:
stated that although hearsay evidence noe re-
ceiyed direct evidence yet H may DO sined IN cor
roboration OF q witnesses testimony TO show thAt no
affirmed the thing before on other occasions-
Mr. Phillips states the proposition. and enunciaes tho
doctrine for which we contend upon which stand
in clear emphatic and conclusive language and ~
a. the book can be produced will read his language
literally toyour Honor
Mr. Greenlssf, In his work upon Evidence VOL I. ..
5s8l this language
where evidence Of contradictory statements by wit
ness Of particular faets Is offered by way OF nposcb-
ing his veraety, his general character for truth being
thus put In ISSUE IL has been deemed reason-
able admit general evidence that he man Of strco
integrity aud scrupulous regard for Truth but evisucs
that ne has other 0ccas0nA made statements slar
what he has testified r the bnot admissible up-
less where design 10 miepresenf Ia charged upon th
witness consequence " his relation the party or "
the which SCENE " BIZ proper show TIL