New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-30

has hoen sdouted and affirmed by Court OF Appeals
Upon the competency Of Witnesses says Jhs leaned
ure Il believed witness thus Interested 70 De ~
verify and there consequently rev Up 9n1sI y a [ go
iuy and ofen lie occ4soa o. giea' hai
and injustice The ohJee,ons 20 ss tai1ent n tra
would best promoted by opening every source ~
In ven case and all persons cognzant q any tact bear
inc UPON the ce and especially those ordinarily most cover
ssnt with them, the parties selves should % to
existence Of integrity They believed in toe capacity 81
human nature, although interested 70 SPEAK me u.,
to h5d Detect 9 t' f aI9R From ,uef bes q
and N soe OF the states Of this country radical tho
admissbiy and competency o. psrson ~ ~i1ss ~ ~
the old no longer questioned except by the few who have 90
our only safety In keeping fast anchored 70 the pat
Omtting few paragraphs, Sir, he says:
factions between married persons should constitute no eI-
ception general Of procce Each represent ~ees
ghts Of both concerns property and pe'sohAs
rights saitors can institute Jgeo fSem So n.
actions where husband and wife are copAhu1s or co
& b S9 ngso4 t 4.G rsanc he ned With The w-fe
Such actions be entertained and d by the court TO
ordinary way or by exceptional meihodi VIII the Jaw;
while il entertans them saytnat they shall Dc DECIDES
mater Of some concern 10 the law shall the ap-
proved for arriving result consouant with tie dignity q s
law rights individuals in other be employed n
R s15G alG psr 1 ' daa 1s 1 @ = ia o So
shall the husbands mouth closed iu his DcA@i WIS
HE VIE is topary though permitted to speak i sued
aloney'
Indeed
"though permitted 70 speak II sued alone. !.
wife cannot be witnesses for against each Other.
lie Als' DlAlCh II D-- mn ~ -il -,t.i In ct,
common law held incompetent 70 testify therein IN
course excluded the parties to the records Al common ~
vifes civil existence merged u ,at a. the husband,
and the REGARDED but pcyn She ad no "pa-
right property u action and hence excl ae iran
being witness In her husband behalf T.- Genty ~ ntr'
rest vas a so ne real suppof Oh .le rue '' -,
awnes against re h2,olld I'D cons '' o' ., I'''J
q interest and i9 bon sees re N'r- Nor -, $
the Court friend as-.Gde Ley ner o. l-on va oLa
Of mutual confidence aaJ harnoly. ..'e ~. even
o. adycr u he other sone ie
IoIy "'-'- ~ '4 - -. ~ - -. ~ s.. ., -
cord result The OF fmI cs would ;.1s De- Jo'rc-d
merely subserye pecanar Interests = 10 Do p,rsna
And he proceeds sir citing elementary authorities, ard
he concludes by saying:
think clear therefore tia, the principle which
cudes the husband or the wife u the party 'om osu- WI
privilege existing between them
And privilege refers confidential commEnica-
tons and connection with the idea Of psblc policy
with the harmony Of the domestic relation
ut authorities could be cited wNch state that .
with view Of preserving the peace u families and where
said that the admission Of such testimony would a- 70 l
s6eSon e ahg anesp I 1 cs, b55 M # s =
sscredy cherished But those cases are carefully examined
it VII De found that ILLS Festl5l II Is o' 4ad eA-se' "A1
not fully considered
And then ne proceeds y examine MEM ST. 4A- 70.
with respect 70 the protection Of confident cogncaonf
between husband and vie there good reason ior such '
lection at al times
bat no such principle has been brought INTO practice
The decisions excluding husbands wiyes o. par;ia
ere are ot o, en-, sSCo. 1.' N. Ee eror eTtd@ 10 !
the testimony confidential no' and a. q
protection given conua confidence IN respect 20 VIZ
hesses these parties we're az mgCa within roe oaro1
Of the rule, existed, the other c-s-, It MI
be safely affirmed that no such rule has ye' of1
established. A. 20 the authorities most ~ me des't
in favor excluding the wives Of parties en case3
the husbands excluded and there js no MATS
and favor preventing domestic dort &C. sh those con-
diuons consistent viii the principle As interest "~s 10
ground of objection
He then proceeds 70 reason upon the effect Of Cot(
aboshing the disqualification Of interest and auay oi n
consonance with opinions have read % your Honor
ask your attention Sir to Of WeErk~mp g. WI
lett found in the 4th volume Of Abbott Court oi Appa
Decisions at page That where t1e wife va.
party plaintiff offered herself witness ant where ht
question was whether the property which mai Oeen seized >
the sheriff against whom the action brought belonged a
the wife or husband The question whether sac "s
competent witness It held che was And read ~
Sir for two purposes First maintain the doctrine ASSERTED
by Justice James exclusion Of the wife De h4
a. the case might founded upon the -- Of cones
tic harmony; and second show that ~ 40 at3n Ike re pcs
ent even law the objection Of beng parry -
husband wife sole party the other not beng
party would be competent q w-ess T. e Court slys.
THE rule Of the LAW DID not prohibit husband I'D
wife testfyng q civil action unless or t otls q
both parties directly interested IN the -eaed OF ua
interest as would disqualified wife oy % common
law rules The action WIS n DO proper --l- a-' h %
made claim the property taken AID sod ~ e deienaaf
and had interest N the Atga,lOu un-7s i 81 ~ -
h debts paid from properly TO which Dc 'd 20 rn
The code provides mat parry 20 ~. ac'-' ," LSF a
examined his Own behalf OF 10 'r.ili ~ as
Of examination a. any other witness keep "'lsi c.'
husband wife shall be required 20 disclose any cong
The letter Of the Statute certainly extend ~ re p'i
not having conflicting Interest,". coutcug interest O.; 20
| and thee il a C
sdnssibily Of husband and wife As ~llIes-e-'
And yet all the argument presented by my learned friend al
his glowing oraOry concerning the fanc, and 1a4rce 4
the domestic relation are founded exclusively upon "a
doctrine syowed by the Court 81 at Eesor "a
have been changed by the legislation Of the present
"Tbe Of the after RUE for not admitting husband AID
wife witnesses Tor each other was because Of en- IDENTIFY
interest; nor were they 9d55ed q5aa' e Oe' H.
1as ssS deemed SSay - @ are po ao oWa 20 be @
dence against each other partly becau~ r. Inpo.s
Of the Of persons and therefore z thy were az.
United 70 De witnesses 2r e.Ch Gll' ny . ~ ~ - !,
cause; and IL against each other they would ~, ct AZ
other maxim 40 one Is obliged TO couvc, himself"
And you see Sir upon what the policy Of tie common Az
rested; and you how clearly this idea Of anr Of denuJ
Of Interest," had almost said Of person, certainly Of heart
Is abrogated by tie laws Of this STATE.
Says Baron Gilbert
"H they husband AID wife swear 'or each otherT
they are DeIeyed because their Interests ab-O.
iutely the SANE, and Therefore AeS CO " 10 ne
/ credit when they attest Tor ca y owner ran VII Y
| a man attests FOR hms,f and 10 would very hard q
wife should be allowed eyiduc -aLst no wAca
she cannot attest for hin Sucu .N would Uisrn ne
placable quares and divisions, and destroy hc very M pol
Icy Of but Of late years m t- state material and
radical changes have been IN the aw Oh h..lc nd
wife and IN the law Of evidence, ard the cUp and i
instability Of Witnesses undernAnc. in 1e, '-..,e, I'd
sses " and practically aorosatQs Tie common -" de-
-T Mp PoLGER CITED.
Now your Honor pleases, il Il Tie ,Eor, o. my carr,f
friend 10 reestabh rule roll back he sumec cou,ss
Of progress growth Of legislation 10 ask your Honor &c re'