The morning news. [volume] (Savannah, Ga.) 1887-1900, 1900-04-17
FIGHTING OVER EVIDENCE.
MIR. harrow OBJECTS TO ADMIS-
SION OF LETTERS OF MRS. PRENTY.

WBchSIeIn case resumed IheN
Had No Knowledge of the Fraud
said 10 Have Been Committed on
Mrs. Catherine PrentY-Mr. Bry-
ans Professional Objections 10 the
System of Vertical handwriting.
Mar. DOrsett Heard No Objection to
the saIe-CounseI for Plaintiff OBJ
jects TO Introduction of Letters.
The trial of the Prenty- Wachstein case
for the recovery OF certain valuable lots
of land was resumed in the Superior Court
yesterday morning, the counsel for the
defense continuing the Introduction of ev-
idence. The days session ended with a
question as TO the admissibility of evil
dence.
The first witness placed on the stand
during the morning was Mr.. c. II. Dor
sett. the auctioueer who sold the property
| that Wachstein subsequently bought Mr.
Dorsett testified that while he was selling
the property he heard no cutlery such as
that described on the stand by John Kel-
". to the effect that whoever bought the
lots bought a lawsuit" and he sold it
for McMuray in confidence that the title
was good ana that the purchaser would
| exp arience no diftieulty. Because no one
had bid enough to satisfy the demands of
| the seller at the sale thu property had
not been knocked down. Shortly after
wards it had been offered by Mr. Dorsett
| to Wachstein at the price the latter had
bid at the sale, $3.50 and the offer had
been accepted. 1t was the failure to Sc
cure what was thought to be an adequate
bid for the property, and not a question
as to the title. that had prevented its be-
ing disposed of at public cutlery.
The next witness was Mr.. John M.
| Bryan, who as a handwriting expert,
| identified a number of the papers and
| documents, it was intended to introduce
| in evidence Mr.. Bryan was unable 10
Identify he afidavits alleged to have teen
made by the plaintiff, Mrs Mary Ann
| Prenty. confessing her own i'll conduct.
| Spurred on by this difficulty Mr.. Bryan
was induced to enter his protest against
the system of vertical writing now being
| taught in the public schools of Savannah,
and to declare that it destroyed all indi-
viduality and was a temptation to forg-
cry and fraud that was not to be resisted,
| Mr.. j. r. Saussy testified that he was
present when the deed from Mrs. Gather
inc Prenty to Patrick McMurray had been
| executed by the former. He had gone to
| her home, as he then supposed, by her
request, and had found the old woman
sitting in a chair in the parlor. He was
unable to swear positively whether he had
| read the deed to her or not, but, this
| was his inVariable custom, was inclined
| to think he had At any rate she had
made no objection and at her request, as
| she was unable to write, he had written
| her name and affixed her mark to the
| document.
In the afternoon Fileb Wachstein. the
| DTi0Cin91 defendant in the
| placed on the stand. Wachstein said he
| had never been placed on notice in any
way that the title to abe property was
not perfectly good, and that he had
| bought it in perfect good faith. He de-
| MED positively that Kelly had told him
at she public sale that the title was bad
and that the other witnesses who had
testified to the like effect were speaking
| the truth. The examination, conducted
| by Mr.. Barrow, revealed minor inconsist-
| enciee in some parts of his testimony, but
he stuck closely to the tale that made
him out an innocent purchaser for value
| and without notice.
The attorneys for the defendants next
| offered in evidence a number of letters
written by Mrs. Prenty, then Mrs Nc
| Murray, while she was prisoner in the
| House of Refuge in New York, to her
| husband. To the introduction of these
letters Mr.. Barrow made strenuous objec-
ton, on the ground that the law prohib-
tied the Introduction of communications
| between husband and wife, because of
| public policy.
The principle of law he invoked is well
| recognized under the common law and in
| corporated in the code of the state
| Though it has some exceptions it pro-
| Vides in general terms that letters be-
| tween a husband and wife shall not be in
PRODUCED in evidence for or against either
This exclusion is based on the demands
of public policy, and is well and almost
| universally understood.
| In reply to Mr.. Barrows objections
| to the introduction of the letters, Col Mel
| drim offered an argument that is prob
| ably entirely new. He contended that IN
der the law prohibiting the introduction
| of letters between husband and wife it
| was necessary, not only that the subject
| matter of 4he letter should be confidential
| and the communication of the facts Their
in contained induced by the relationship
between the writer and him or her to
whom it was addressed, but that the facts
conveyed in the letter should have come
| to tho knowledge of the writer by reason
of the confidential relationship. Other
wise, said Col. Meldrm, such letters were
| not debarred by any rule of the law
| At the conclusion of the arguments
Judge Faligant directed that the recess
until 10 o'clock this morning be taken,
| stating that in the meantime he would
| read the letters and decide upon their adj.
| instability in evidence II is urged by Mr.
Saussy that they are admissible as being
contradictory of certain parts of the evil
dence of the plaintiff, and 1t is possible
that they will be admitted on this ground
Col. Meldrm made this point also in his
argument TO the court.
The plaintiff has not yet begun the In
PRODUCTION Of evidence in rebuttal and it
is probable that this viii take up most of
the morning. Even should it happen
that the arguments to the court and jury
begin this Afternoon. it will be impossi-
Bile TO conclude them by night and the
case Is certain TO go over until Tomorrow.
If it gets to the jury by that time, the
members of that body will consider them
selves lucky.
Mr.. IL. VI. Orme's Lecture.