New-York tribune., 1875-02-17

eay certain thing and upon that statement which you
have made, ask you this question" submit on
that the statement which had been previously m"e
inducing particular question which was here put ana gwen
In evidence IA by adopon and part Of the question
itself becomes part the ineogatoy and for the purpose
OF understanding what that statement was what he iou
ton OF this inteogatory ask the witaess wna ~
| statement which Ia referred to In this question:
Does your Honor any impoprietJ In H. any possoy
wrongi IT, In connection with that statement mr. Ion n'u
made qualifying expressions statements do they not become
part of this question and necessary to perfect understand
ing OF the question: But Sir, they get this ~
question and answer and the significance OF 'm' u'
| cussion has far broader import than mas
been given to it-they get an answer Ho"
Mr. Tl,on that for year given period his wife had per-
ssenty said to him that she had violated her marriage vow
"Dd Won say that Mr. Tltonr A. Yes, Sir, said tha1 we
ask Mr Tlton "what else did you say upon that SUD
ject Of tho adultery OF your wife, What else did you say
| explanatory Of this answer What else did she say
to YOU upon osbject which you have teshed 70 III
this examination" Is not the subject kindred sr' II MI
Tlton in answer TO question Immediately preceding this In
terogatory said my wife conceded to me that she h
had sexual intercourse with Mr. Beeche but In consqnenceo
certain relations which she bore to him. pous or religious OF
what not in Of the deep which enter
tain for him, in consequence OF my conviction thal
my intercourse with him rest to him. heathfu to him.
inspired animated him in the pursuit Of his holy profeon
under the seducons and impressions that yielding 10 MIN
would aid to the Of Christianity and religion
submitted myself without an impression OF wrong
or sin to his solicitations" would not that be eyi-
dence, Sir evidence explanatory Of this answer that
my wife during year insisted that she had committed no
say Cannot the answers OF the witness given In the same
animation explanatory OF the sense not only in which he gave
answer but explanatory OF the meaning under which Mrs
Tton Insisted she had been guilty OF no wrong be per-
mssble in Court Justce Now the rule is Sir as every
body Comedies that where portion Of declaration given IN
evidence all the rcmlnng part tending to qualify or explain
that portion which is given in evidence Is admissible
The question here the assertion OF Mr. lt0n that MS We
insisted she had been guilty Of no corrupon Mr. T'on IN
another portion Of his examination explains the circumstances
the theory the impressions, the doctrines upon which
that assertion was made by him, and the principle or
the theory upon which Mrs. Tion made this assser-
| ton in regard to her moral purity. Now under
the rule strictly Sir announced in the Court OF Appeals SUD-
NIT 10 your that the whole OF Mr. THons testimony
upon that subject admissabe and you will see Sir that Is
necessary asceanmeu OF the truth The Charge to be
made against Mr. Ton is in the argument to this jury: You
have said that your wife for year insisted upon her purity
Under what did you make this assertion
| Why did you concede your wife to be a pure woman
| What was the influence under which she was acting
which led you concuon and why do you exhonerae
her from the and shame which womanhood naturally
and stncyey would consider the deepest crime against
her nature - May Mr. Tlton explain it, SIR Is he to De
carried falsely to this jury viii the assertion tha' ne
considered his wife pure who had sold her BODY 10 the
adultere and no explanation, qualification given OF
1
| nurnoae Of our eydence 1t Is our design TO
| argue that question to this Court and jury; that
notwithstanding Mr. Ton accused his wife OF this sdul-
terry he nevertheless held her pure and Ana can
he not say why! "Whst the communications between
you and your wife upon that subject from which you derived
that mpressoni Upon what principle OF morals or Of
| virtue is it that you made the declaration that
your wife was siness and pureT' 1t seems to me your
Honor that upon technical view Of this question: and upon
consideration OF the principle which involved in the objection
made by my learned friend attitude in which they p"ent
r Tion by this question and s5 entitled to this
evidence Now, Sir in this statement which was the
I statement referred to by this question, Mr.
| Titon does state In writing some Of the circum-
stance, and impressions that led him to this answer.
will not read tcm Sir but offer them and they are con-
tained in Articles I'll and w. oth statement relating to the
very subject Of this question and to degree explaining the
motives which led Mr. Ton to give the answer the answer
adopting the foundation upon
which 1t addressed the witness 1t is essentially q
part OF the question by the very phraseoogy OF the
| inquiry and it is part OF the answer, the
substance the the question: the same subject
expressing idea my friend contradictory
OF the answer by any statement OF foreign TACT
which will conflict with the answer but deliberate prepared.
written statement explaining to certain degree the views
which are contained In that submit to your Honor 1t
| Is admissible
Mr. Evarts-I propose to close the argument ii nay
| learned friends have said all they wished to say.
Mr. Beach-wel hops that will be practice that will con-
| ment 1t has not heretofore.