The sun. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1833-1916, 1897-04-18
THE TEL EPHONE IN LAW.
Judge Bundy or Indiana Not the First TO Admit
y Conversation over the Wire M Evidence.

Judge Bundy or Indiana Not the First to Admit
= Conversation Over the wire as Evidence.
A recent despatch from Anderson, Ind, said
that Judge Bundy Of that place had established
a precedent for courts all over the United States
by allowing a conversation through a telephone
to be admitted as evidence. In tho suit before
him the conversation through the telephone had
n distinct and material bearing on the case.
Lawyers for the defence objected to its admis-
sion as evidence, on the ground that the identity
OF the person talking through tho telephone
could not be proved as that OF the defendant.
~ find that this point has never been ruled
upon" Judge Bundy Is reported as saying,
and l think it is time a precedent were estab.
lished. l now admit the legality of tho telc-
phone. and the conversation will DO permitted
TO go in as evidence"
In this statement Judge Bundy made a mis-
take. A precedent had already been established
and the point had been ruled upon. In 1894
Judge Benedict Of the United States Circuit
Court OF the Southern District of New York dc.
cided this very point and on the evidence SO nd
mitted the prisoner was sentenced to q term in
prison. which no is now serving. In this
case John Matthews, Thomas +. Jones and vii.
liam Todd were accused of conspiring to defraud
the United States Government by Illegally and
iTaudnlently securing goods that wero in the
mcnt against them WAS filed on March IL, 1904.
Matthews was arrested. but the two others
nnncu IN the INDICTMENT managed to escape. On
March -, 1894. Matthews was arraiSned before
Judge Benodict for trial. The prosecution was
looked after, by Assistant United States District
Attorney John o. Mott, why is now a City Nlngis-
trate, Lawyers Charles A. Hess and Charles L.
McClclland appeared for tho defence.
Tho trial lasted until June z. 1891. The de-
FENCE fought bitterly. and IL was finally found
necessary, IN order 10 prove that Matthews had
conspired. TO offer aS evidence n conversation
between Matthews and adriyer in his employ
named Samuel Nicholas. when Nicholas was
called to the stand, Assistant District Attorney
Mott proved that Nicholas knew Matthcws's
voice through the telephone, and had received
orders many times from him over the wire.
Then no asked Nicholas to repeat tho CONVERSE
Lion that Matthews and he had had through the
telephone. The lawyers for tho defence oh
j. eted strennously 10 the admission Of this
evidente. OF. the ground that there WAS no way
OF proving absolutely Tint the person who spoke
to Nicholas was Matthews. Judge Benedict
ruled az iinst them. He said that the telephone
was almost universally used In commercial
transactions; that thousands OF dollars were in
yolvod every day in deals over
the phone; that property could bo legally trans
ferred In this manner, and that in all these cases
the question OF the identity OF the talker had
never been raised. Judge Benedict suid thai no
therefore saw no reason why a person familia
with the voice Of another person talking
right TO testlSJ In court as TO any
conversation he had had with such person. On
this evidence and ruling, Matthews WAS con
victed OF conspiracy and sentenced TO a term in
the Kings County PenitentiaIy. lie was after
dence he had given In his own behalf, and on
this charge also he was convicted and sentenced.
He 10 yet In the Kings County PenitenIiary
serving his two tsrmas "