New-York tribune., 1875-02-02
NEwYoRK DAILY s75TRPLE SHEET

would "a, on oath which IL absurd" II IL held that this ap
plies to written as well to verbal declarations
The fact that wife cannot be examined az 4
witness by reason Of her husbands being a party
IL not for admitting evidence Of her declaaons
Now yCur Honor will perceive that quite impossible to al
here the proposition that the husband wife ca noi give
evidence against the other the ground OF public pocy ana
protection Of the marriage relation when the point oi eV
donce sought decided arises the confidence Of marriage
II that transcribed and Tamped upon BY The mere
introduction of communication Of that confidential COM
muncaton made by Tie husband the wife to third person
and then the shape % Introduction Of the evidence be-
the husband the wife and the third person the con
hdcnco Of marriage f. violated When gay Third person
person ~ the married pact don't mean q
third person respect 10 the controversy bu third person IN
reference 10 the marar Now when husband and wife yo
late confidence OF communication made 20 them in that
relation by communicating il another person that comHuni
cation may be poyabe but It cannot be provabe by the nus
band wife that make part o that proof the dive sng
OF the confidential communication.
Judge NelsOnWithn the ruling intend 20 make shond
receive any evidence of any communication by
the plaintiff wife This question however svery different
The question f. whether in conversation assuming there may
have been communicaton-whethe in conversation
between the parties the conversation may not be gwen IN ey
dcnce although may in involve what may have been
learned in that form OF confidential Communications That rule
transressed from IT, in the given between
the parties the party allowed that his wife had
given that Information could not permit that. Of course
M Beach, hope vour Honor wi not rule that way without
hearing authorities Your Honor is anticipating question
which sc have avoided discussion upon hitherto.
Judge Neilson-You may not quite understand me- an
strongly Impressed with the belief that any conversation be-
the parties this action may be given but that con
ycrslton reveals any degree any communication received
from the wife although part u the conversation with The de-
fsudnt DE liberty give H. be would not be n liberty 70
go yet further back that the wife actually him
That conGI--. a narrated IL that conversation Whatever IL
might be.
NJ BachI7t leaves Oh main question open ior discussion
and VIII trouble yogs Honor witA any remarks upon u
t becomes necessary do But hope you Honor
viii hold your mind open the discussion Of the question Of
what constituted a confidential communication between Lls
baud and wife u which neil her speak, and what crm
modify that communication, that hc may disclose To-
and aa. a . statutory Jaw d, Tile day upon that
subject
Nr E,ar.-T.Hr Honor wl ha od onfUsh 10 no' my cz-
exception amy evidence ais subject The question s
proper enough question "a - FORM Ny objection however ia
advance f testimony any evidence Oh the part of h's VIII
n answer 20 this general question La mag contain
statement VI amy confidential communication from DIS "ie
although may nav. been communicated 90 VT Be.cAcr
Jndae Ne.l-ou-Ye-. will note your exception.
Nj Era.,--I 20 raise hat po.l VI w. and wiz 'se
al exception I 0a. Honor l4- decided DO: to exclude the e
tinony
Nr Fl.eon-I l'l6 Tho question a lot arise ID 'Ae c@-
al. nation 4 t-s Hi.Ac-- al all