Year: 1875

| aught know.


Mr.. Evarts-Oh no, scarcely.
Mr.. Fullerton-You may have correct copy then
Mr. Eyarts-Ahl it is possible.


Judge Neils0n-f they have correct copy hey nBnt Po
duce it. ,.


Mr. Fullerton Certainly that what we propose we nave
no objection to their Offering the copy evidence II y nave
IT, and they have think that good faith requires 'hat 'y
should it, so that we understand eAacty "A' " "
doing. A.,


NJ II NAV be very proper at stage Of the trial
70 raise .ome Of these questions take it quite in or
der in asking these questions


Mr. Fullerton-No; think not.
Mr. Beach-Wel we will see The objection, Sir assumes
this FORM that they giving secondary evidence OF an
instrument the OF which h0y have not proven Ihere Is
no evidence but what the original exists in their possession or
in the possession OF person whom they nave spps


ny absolute control and until they prove the loss OF the IN
srumeut they resort to this mode Of proving IT.


Judge Nelson Has been traced into their posseSsion'
| Mr. Eyarts-No, Sir.


Judge Nclson- been traced to their possession


Mr. neacb has been traced to the possession of Mrs Til
Judge Nelson BY whom it was destroJed'


Mr. Heach-By whom this witness informed tha was
DESTROYED but it turns that portion of it was afterwards
found by this witness after Mrs. Tion left his house Nov"
whether she has the possession oi the oher pooh o
this risiual document does not appear


JUDGE NconShe might have it and it could not be got


Mr. Beach-yery WELL that they do not show. They have





person into whose custody il originally put Another
proposition Sir the original instrument Is lost there Is
copy OF tan authentic copy Of it, the possession OF whch
they do not dsam the best secondary evidence OF the
contents Now my objection is Sir that without any oil TINS
proof giving license to introduce secondary e'uece c
course now pursued by the counsel is improper


udoe Ncilson-I think view Of the Circumstance that


the paper was in the hands Of Mrs Tton and understood
70 have been destroyed but small portion OF it finally
found-only portion OF -ths witness ignorant ol '
euce Of any more may take this course but at the same
time think that counsel might well be interroSated ana might
well answer frankly whether he has got correct copy or not


Mr. Bcach-Wcl Sir ought they not to show before hey
are permitted give secondary evidence OF the contents oi
hi, document that they least applied to the party
in whose possession it was? 1t does not follow SIR
becaus Mrs Tion may told her husband that 1t was dc
sroyed because lac understood that was destroyed Iha'
that was actually the fact They show no application
mad, 10 the party in whose custody the instrument
| was when this witness had the lat knowledge
Of it, Now | think Sir, that your Honor should
eoure at least should have proof Of an application TO
that source Information in regard TO the existence OF the
ORIGINAL document And IL it should appear that they nave
made that application and unable to Ob;an H. why II
mi h be satisfactory to the rule; but without ta
submit to your that have no adequate or sufficient
proof the loss search made Tor H. aI "ouu justify
| the Introduction Of secondary evidence.


judge Nc,on-I should feel the force OF that much more
strongly il the witness had found and produced this as
meat Of IT, but finding and producing fragment Of helps the
suggestion that the rest may be destroyed


Mr. Frleton-Ycs your Honor but they are not reading
from the fragment they not using the fragment they are
usn something else. which pcsupposes that something e,e IN
the shape Of copy or original exists That Is the aIhculy
! about it,


judge NeIson-I don't know but you ought to use this
method think viii 50 on, gentlemen. Take an cxcep-
|