Year: 1875

sound law. 1t was not the lsw of England,
neither was it the law of America. The
counsel quoted two cases, where the hus-
band IN one case was convicted of perjury
on the testimony of his wife, and In the
other he was convicted OF perjury and
biganIy In a case in this state, Justice
Barrett SAYS: ''The evidence of the
husband and wife IS receivable,
though the evidence may criminals
one OK the other" Certainly this was the
case in this state. He bad selected one case
from the state of New Jersey where the linz
itation of the law was propounded by the
court, which said that the only question
was iu admitting the evidence of the hus-
band where he said he thought the rules
should be extended and limited. IL plaia-
tiff were admitted to the stand aud proved
Auditory against his vile. did that charge
her with any crime or criminality. No, for
that was not the Law as Ii was known IN
New York.


ADULN:RY WAS NOT oRIME


or an offense in New York. Hence the
reasons of the counsel on the other side
were inspplieable, because they would not
affect the crincinslity of the wife nor the
iuadmissibility of the plaintiff as a compe-
tent witness. He was a competent witness,
the counsel argued In conclusion, and should
be so sworn. William A. Beach rose to





sci. BE paid a.compiiment to the rhetoric
of the counsel on the.Other side. That dec
lamation, he said, would have looked better
had it came from one who IVES not defending
. man who was believed TO be walking in
the Gllustrious footsteps of his
master Whatever Beecher might say
on that stand the justice or impartiality OF
the law Gebarred Theodore Tilton from an
swering the imputaEions. The seducer would
be allowed on the stand, while the man
whom he had wro1ged would be forced to
sit idly by with his Ups sealed. This was a
grave and important subject which his honor
had to deal with. T&e counsel believed that
tho law cherished tenderly the family and
home. He ergued that no society or govern
ment could stand except upon The sanctity
of the domestic circle being preserved invio-
late. The saEne held good with regard to the
marriage relations. The counsel on the
other side held that this union of souls
could not be torn, but the speaker
submitted that it had been mangled and
torn. His friends on the other side were
digging among the fossils of the past and
bringing up dead carcssses of exploded
themes and parading them by the way OF
argument But these were not to guide the
court. The counsel imagined cultured snd
happy home, the wife, weak, frail woman
devoted to the husband of lIer early choice
and the father of CHILDREN. Size had pastor,
learned and honored, gifted among his
fellows, one whose words were listened to
with difference and reverence. All, he was
gifted with a silver tongue that would
bring an angel out of paradise. She
looked up to him with reverence.
He was almost an inmate of her home and
was in the confidence OF her husband. He
exerted upon her all his arts and she fell. Is
she to be blamed for the sct7 Was this peIse-
cution brought against her for her condem-
nation7 Oh, mol Consider how strong he
was and how weak she was, and imagine the
specious ways in which he taught her that
fornication was but species of love. That
seducer is brought into the hall ofjustice to
answer for his crime. There was no rule in
the law of this state to prevent the
injured man from testifyiDg against
him in suit. In behalf of
this proposition the counsel cited from


NUMEROUS AUTHORITIES.


He called attention to the case of South
wick against Southwick, in 49sh New York.
as case in question. 1t is said that this is
the destruction of conjugsl felicity, but the
law should be uniform and universal in its
character, ana there should be no diversities
of opinions. But was not the harmony in
the c0niugal relation to be disturbed as
much by allowing the husband and
wife to testify in a suit where one
was against the other? The counsel
quoted from Robinson's reports case
where a wife had left her husband on ac-
count of cruelty. He brought a lewd woman
in the house to live with him. The wife
was admitted to testify as to the facts of the
matter. This was followed by an extract
from the opinion of Justice James, in which
he admitted the late changes in law with re-
gard TO the relations between man and wife
IN this country aud in England, and referred
briefly to them. The counsel at this point sus-
pended his argument and a recess was taken.
After the recess a commotion was raised in
the court room by the entrance of Mrs.
Til,on on the arm of Mr.. Ovington, and ac-
companied by Mrs. Field and Mrs. Shear
man. The party took their accustomed seats,
facing the Jury and behind the counsel for
the defense. When order had been restored
Mr.. Beach continued his argument. He was
aware that the plaintiffs testimony would
reflect on the purity of his wife. The an
swer of the law was that she was not In
terested in this suit, aud she might
claim all the privileges of a wife from
the ple.ntif. 1t was not the husband
that revealed his wife's dishonor but her
seducer. There was something repulsive in
the thought of suit for seduction, but
when the law gave no other course it i'll be-
come the ministers of the law to reproach
such course. Mr.. Evarts rcs5 to reply to
the argument. He said That the version
spoken of by bis learned friend, to suit of
this kind, was also regarded in the same
light by The law. We are discussing, said
the counsel, the admissibility of this wit
ness with regard to his evidence and mar
riage relations as fixed by the laws of this
state, and he submitted that there was no
rule of common law opening the mouths of
either the husband or the wife. He argued
that the law as quoted by the other side had
been changed.


THE CODE OF 1866


1t must be plain to the court that the law
governing the sdmissibility of. husband
and wife as Witnesses was ruled out by the
statute of 1867. He quoted from legal su.
thorities to show that wife could not tes-
THY against her husband when either was
party to the suit. The question. said the
counsel, was raised By the other side that
the husband was not on one side and the
wife on the other, but the re-
suit would be the same in proving