New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-12
ANOTHER CURIOUS RULING.

trial ia the great number of peculiar questions OF
law that have arisen. But that this is 80 will not be
subject of wonder when the strange and often
anomalous nature of much of the matter Drought
forward as evidence and the enormous length OF inc
case is considered For example, in the examination
of MIR. Beecer Mr. Evarts called his attention to an
interview between himself and Mrs. Tilton
long after the dates of the alleged ofenses,
and endeavored to put in evidence the converse
ton between them Mr.. Tiltons counsel objected,
and the conversation was ruled out; yet he was
allowed 10 state what the occasion The Judge
offered the suggestion that the points which could
be taken were When and where was the inter
yiewf how long did it lastf what occurred
did ANYTHING Of an afiectiOnate or unusual
character occur between themf lie added
that counsel might ask regarding what did
not occur-for instance, any improper ac'
Thereupon Mr. Beccher stated when, where and what
occurred, including his marking OF passage Ill
the Bible There was sharp contest ov9r the
marking of the passage of Scripture, as Id evidence
the plaintiffs counsel Directing on the ground that
it was a part OF the conversation, and among the
thoughts communicated by Dir. Beechcr to the lady.
In making tho ruling, Judge Nelson referred to the
rule which had previously been applied and when
woman abandons her household and goes to live
elsewhere, testimony on the subject may be given IN
Al
he was particular also to express the opinion that If
the woman week OF month afterward, called Oh
several persons and related her grievances testimony
on this subject could not be received That rule had
been applied earlier in the case, and the principle
recognized that act consists not only of what Is
done, but of what is said at the time, the words
being regarded as part of the act, but limited to
the very occasion, time, and place.
THE CLASS OF EVIDENCE EXCLUDED.
Much time and many words have been wasted
since the trial began through misapprehensions
which have arisen naturally enough, on account of
the large number Of witnesses called and the great
mass of testimony taken. One of these unfortunate
mistakes occurred while Mr.. Wilkeson was on the
stand He stated that he was at Washington as the
correspondent of THE TRIBUNE when Mr.. TiltOn
went thither in reference to Mr.. Becchers son
in the army. He was asked what had occurred
at that time at Washington. Mr.. Evarts
claimed the right to contradict the plaintiffs
testimony on that subject, arguing Oh the assump-
ton that the plaintiff on his direct examination, in
troduced the matter and that, therefore, they had
right to contradict him and cited the case of Car
pointer agt. Wall, 3Oth New-York Reports, as recog
nzing the rule that matter brought out by plaintiffs
witness may be cOntradicted, whether material or
not. Mr.. Fullerton who had examined Mr.. Tilton,
was absent through sickness at the time, and Mr..
Beach, Directing, did not seem to remember who had
opened that subject; did Mr.. Morris. The testi-
mony was finally ruled out remote
and collateral, especially Mr. Tilton
had not testified that when at Wash
ington he had seen Mr.. Wilkeson really done
anything there. The blunder of all parties, nclad-
ing the Judge-and the Judges recollection on such
points is usually very goodlay in supposing that the
Washington service had been referred to at all on
the direct examination of Mr.. Tlton. for it
ferred to only by Mr. Evarts on the cross-examina-
tion and it was referred to only twice by bimrst,
the fact taken of Mr.. TiltOn's performing some
vice with regard to Mr.. BeechoTs son, particulars
being given; secondly, when MIR. Evarts put in
note from Mr.. Beecher mentioning tho service CRATE
fully. The Washington service really new mat
ter introduced by Mr. Evarts himself on the cross
examination of Mr.. TtOn, and, therefore, being
remote matter he had not tho right to
rect or contradict it by examining Mr.. Wilkeson
the subject and that rule was subsequently applied
when on Mr.. Hills examination Mr.. Wilkeson
described what Mr. TiltOn had told him he had done
in Washington. and Mr. Evarts offered TO prove it
was not true, and that Dir. WilkesOn himself had
done the service.