New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-15

that IL would prove q good statute But said
Mr. Norris, 1t ought ~ be amended 80 as TO allow
the wife to testify IL behalf of her husband in
GRIN. con. case in which she might wish to be his
witness l do not think that such law
would give rise to of collusion be-
tween husbands and wives against third persons for
collision Of that kind is almost always detected
and exposed on trial. There does not seem TO DO
any occasion for passing bill of this kind to meet
this particular case. for we have always offered
in open court, to waive our privilege and allow
Mrs. Tilton to become a witness for Mr.. Beecher.
And think we had legal right to waive our
objection to her evidence. but the other side did
not see fit to take advantage of our offer"
As to the effect which Mrs. Tilton's testimony
might have the trial, Mr.. Morris could not speak
decidedly. but he was of the opinion that the de-
Tense would not call her as a witness even IL MT.
Coles bill should be passed II she should testify
for Mr.. Beecher the plaintiff would have right to
offer any evidence rebutting her testimony In case
a part Of this rebuttiDg testimony should con-
sist of Mrs TitOn's confidential communica-
tions to Mr. Tlton, and this should be ruled
out by the Court Mr. Morris did not think that the
exclusion would materially affect the plaintiffs case
because the excluded matter had nearly all been
brought out before the jury in some form under
other rules of evidence. Mr.. Morris declined to ex
cations of a wife could be gwen to rebuff her evil
dence given against her husband under the statute
The question he said, was new and open to argu-
ment on both sides The fact OF the passage of such
law as that proposed by Senator Cole, after the
beginning of the suit could not, according TO the
view of Mr. Morris, prevent the application OF the
law to the Beecher trial.
VIEWS OF Ex-JUDGE BEACH.
In conversation on Saturday with TRIBUNE
reporter. MI. Beach stated that II the bill offered by
Mr. Cole became a law before the evidence in the
Beecher case had been concluded, he could see no
reason why Mrs TiltOn could not testify under the
new law in behalf of Mr. Beecher if she chose to do
so. Mr.. Beach had not examined the text of the
bill, but that was the view which he took of the
matter at first thought. If Mrs. Titon should tes-
tify, it would open the door for all tes-
timony which the plaintiff might be able to
produce TO contradict her statements made
in court by evidence of contrary statemen is made
out of court The door would be open also for testi-
mony to rebut any evidence that Mrs. TiltOn might
give in regard to her relations with Mr.. Beecher
In other words she would be liable to contradc-
ton and impeachment as an ordinary witness Mr.
Beach thought that it was somewhat uncertain how
the new law would affect the common law doctrine
excluding confidential communications between
q hush and and wife. 1t was @ debatable
question whether the husband would be allowed
to give in evidence the confidential COM
munications of his wife for the purpose OF
rebutting his wifes testimony against him. But
the lawyer was of the opinion that If the proposed
statute allowed wife to become general witness
against her husband, the husband would be relieved
of his disability to give evidence of his wifes state
ments to him, and Mr.. Beach believed that the
common law doctrine would be done away with to
that extent under the new statute
Mr. Beach said that he did not know who had
been instrumental in getting Senator Coles bill be-
fore the Legislature the plaintiffs counsel GER
tainly had not done anything about 1t, and were
under no apprehension that it would injure their
case if it should be passed. The lawyer thought
that 1t was always Objectionable TO pass law to af-
feet particular case and there was no doubt in his
mind that this bill was intended solely for the pres
ent trial But there was question that the Leg
slature had to pass this law if the Legislators
thought proper.