Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1881-01-10
LOCAL NEWS.
The Christiancy Case.
ARGUING THE MOTION 10 SUPPRESS GIRo's IN

The Christiancy Case.
ARGUING THE MOTION TO SUPPRESS GlRos rEsTI-
NoNY.
This morning In the Equity Court. Jud -
COX, the case OF Isaac =. Christiancy against
Lille NJ. Christiancy-oin for divorce and cross
bill for same-was heard on a motion by Ms
G.. counSel-Mr. j. y Oliver-to suppress ne
testimony OF Edilberto Giro taken In New York
a lew weeks since as 10 an alleged act or ad al
tery at the St James Hotel, December %. 1879
Hon Mr. willivts. Mr. E {. IngersDl and Judge
Cuppy appeared for Mr.. Christiancy 20 resist
the motion. Mr.. Oliver stated that he would be
ready TO proceed IL he had copy OF the Re
vised Sta utes OF New YORK. which have an i'm
portant bearing on the case
III Is understood that the grounds OF the mo-
ton. reasons apparent on The face are that
the testimony Is that OF a laTftoeDS criDllliS
and The material statement made by Giro WAS
procured by an intlmation from tue commits
sioner that unless the witness testified he ,the
commissioner would enforce the law-cOmmtt
Giro Tor contempt under section OF the Re
Nf>ed statutes or that State.-Rep.l
Owing In other business In the court. the dis
cussion or the motion was not entered upon
until Has O'Clock when Mr.. Oliver read Ih,,
motion and remarked that among the papers
was a paper parcel. aud on It there was no
mark indicating that IL was a deposition. IL
was simply marked with the address OF the
clerk ana the number OF the cause.
Mr. Ingersoll said that there would be a full
compliance with law found on the inside wrap
per, and that the outside WAS used 70 prevent
undue notoriety.
The court directed Mr. Clancy 10 take OF the
wrapper. when. as stated by Mr.. lugersoll on
the inside was found 10 be package encased In
heavy brown paper envelope with the certin-
cate OF the commissioner thereon.
Mr.. Oliver. after all Inspection or the contents
read the subpoena 10 Giro. under section 9I5.
which he claimed was issued under stat,
court. and not under the statutes or the United
States.
The court intimated that he did not see that
this Affected the case, so that his testimony was
procured.
Mr. Oliver then read from the testimony or Giro
his declinaton 10 testify as 10 the lady with him
a. the StJames, and as 10 the commissioner real
ing section 92o, Civil Procedure OF New YORK
and fntlmating that he would punish him for
contempt In case OF any further refusal Se,-
tion 920 provides that witness refusing 10
testify Is Liable 10 punishment. and the officer
taking the testimony has the powers OF a jus-
tice or the pesce-to commit the party TO lail
until he shall testify. He submitted that The
appointment Of the commissioner was from q
United States court; that the commissioner
exceeded his authority and IL was
coerclen OF the witness. In carrying
out section S6S. OF the Revised Statutes of the
United States, the supreme Court OF the nited
States had made rule that on the refusal OF
witness 10 testify. such refusal should oe re-
ported 10 the court. lie submitted that 10 in
voking the law OF the state OF New York the
commissioner exceeded his authority. Hp also
submitted that the suggestion OF the NJ iintil's
attorney that adultery was not a felony ia the
District msled the witness. Mr.. Oliver read
the act OF MARY land OF l1l5. prescribing a pen
atty OF fl2, which says convicted by twelve
men, ana asked how party could be tried by
twelve men II not indicted. He submitted thai
TIE examiner should have stopped the
examination. when the witness declined 10 an
swer and reported the fact 10 this co art. He
also read the statement OF Giro a 10 MS arrest,
In which he says that his arrest was made 10
intimldate him; that he was pointed out ov Mr.
oliver. and that the charges made BY Blood
were made 20 iD1ure him aS a witness and with
drawing all his objections lf his testimony
contained no more truth than his statement as
TO being pointed out then there was nothing IA
It, Mr. OIiyer explained that he had nothing
to 90 with the arrest that he mad. when applied
to by deputy sheriff. refused TO point GIRO
out. and that the officer got his clue from a
clerk.
Mr.. Ingersol replied, moving that under the
Laws or New York, commissioners were clothed
with power as stated; that this court had
appointed the commissioner. and unless he had
authority 10 enforce his mandate he could not
comply. On the point that Giro was intim-
dated he said that he was advised as 10 the
law and was not told how 10 testify, but simply
that he must answer the questions. IL there
was any question as to coercing the witness he
had caused 1t by withdrawing his objection.
Mr. Oliver replied that this man had not
made the withdrawal until he had falsely
charged that he co. had caused his (i'sl
arrest.
THE MOTION DENIED
Judge Cox said the point that the witness was
summoned by the state was oyerruled for it did
not make much difference how he got before the
commissioner. He did not see either. but that
the state had the right 10 empower a commits
sioDer TO compel witness TO answer. III there
was anything In this point IL was the privilege
OF the witness and not OF party TO the suit.
AS 10 witness being intimidated on the law OF
adultery. he said that IL was question or prvi-
lege for the witness TO raise and he therefore
denied the motion.
AT the conclusion or The hearing on the mo
tfon, suggestion was made that the deposi-
t1on OF Giro b. placed In the hands or the ex-
aminer here, Mr.. Lovetoy. but the court
ordered ii TO be rled In The clerks Office with
the exhibits. the letters published last Tues
day.
There is considerable diversity OF opinion oy
those who have examined the manuscript as
TO the genuineness OF the letters and some
who claim to be able 10 detect differences IN
hand writiDg, expressed The opinion to-day
that those nied were written by two, II not
three, different persons.
Mrs. Christ tiancy continues quite sick. but is
Slowly mendiog and the physician has made an
order permitting no visitors outside her family
and attendants.