The New York Herald Newspaper, January 29, 1875, Page 3

aus oi human society constituted for our detence and protection that cannot be overpushed; that | relation of client and attorney; that of clergyman ind penitent; that of physician and patient are vial a8 compared with the reiation of husband wile. duction of evidence irom sources thus protected be- cause without that respect from the law for those relatious No cilent could contide in a lawyer to dejend him, no patient in a physician to save him, bo penitent in 4 priest or clergyman to aid bim. But when we come to the relation of husband and wile, wich i tne foundation of our civilized | although nature provides the sexual and reitgious | Bove atiractions, yet it is the civil ipstirution of marriage that makes civilized Guristlan communities instead = of loose and Jlustial hertings of the common race. ow the common law, built uw derstandings that nave raise m its gre: Cae no fine sentimental par: 8 such a8 teots them accordingly, be iuruished and not otoerwise consistently with the divine command, Bays “that a man and his wife are one,’ orion it there are certain limits imposed by the na- Barriers are raised agaimet the intro. by the migaty un- | it monu- ‘om platiorm orators or from eloquent law- 8, Dut ic understands the institutions that tt undertaken to frame and to protect, and pro- {t provides that when a man and @ woman come together under the divine law of purity, that they twain shoula become one fesn, and that the popuiation of the world shall And woen the common law | NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, JANUARY 29, 1875.—WITH SUPPLEMENT. sistent with the relation of marriage. Reeves, in bis “Domestic Relations,” and other commenta- tors say, on that relation, that the removal 80 disqualifies the witness to testify under the present means, because where one is called for the other cross-examination might bring out facts making it rigut for one to testily against the other. Reeves says, distinctly, which is a rule of law, that husband and wiie cannot be witness for or against each other. This is tamiiuar to the re+ lation of husvand and wile, The principle. or rme, arises irom that anxious solicitude which the law discovers to preserve domestic senti- ments, Ifa husband and wile and all agree that | they may be a witness the law interferes and prevents it. This is just, and is done because the whe 13 interested, that there no propriety in their being witnesses, but to ver such a rela- tion in the case Of @ husbaad and wife has o vendency to disturb that. domestic tranquil- lity which i 80 desirable, and thereiore the law prevents it In the quaint language of an early author, “A married woman cun- not be ® Witness for or against a husvand. because the intimacy which is between them is one in law, and the intimacy of their relations must arise between them by perjury or througn great inconveniences.” In Spooner’s more recent book, dated 1870, this principle is isted upon and enlarged. Starkey in his book adopts the same rule, that a husband and wife cannot give evidence for cach other, either in civil oF criminal of Dennison against Page in 29 Pennsylvania State Reports, 420, which | read now:—‘T! mother ol @ cbild born in wedlock is incom- petent to prove that the child was not be- gotten by the man who became her husband be- fore the birth of the child.” This {: important position, 1f Your Honor please, in which the whole doctrine is considered, and the conclusion 13 bused upon this general proposition of the pro- | tection of marriage against any invasion by tne administration of justice, The case of the Kini against the inhabitants of Kiimeyer—the wife shu! not be calied in any case to give evidence to criminate her husband. it isthe authentic mar- Tlage that ts pot admissible, though the case was ot an indictment tor bigamy, but only @ case of | settlement. 1 give some of the Virginta cases. The case of Olden and others, paupers, against King, in which the Court of Appeals of Virginia, the iignest Court of that State, determined t the widow was oot @ competent witness to dis- close declarations of her deceased husband in the suit of the parties to recover their ireedom, they being slaves. The wiie coulé not speak even of matters of this kind given to her by her nusband during bis liietime, thongh the question was not | one of personal interest to her to hold the slaves, Now, # very important case in the Supreme Court of the United States I give. In the case of Stein vs. Gowan, 18 of Peters, p. 209, there appears the general role that neither husband nor Wile can ve & witness for or against eacn other, Tnis rule ts s to such suit, action or proceeding,” There is noth- gethorieg all sustain this view of tne case. ing in this that changes the rule COMMON Law. The act of 1867 to qualify and modify the exclusion of husband and wile as witnesses in matters of interest. Even in ci where they can be produced as witnesses there is a limitation to the largeness of their testimony. This act has disturbed the rule as to the admissibility of their says, “Nothing herein contained slail render any husband or wile competent or cowpellabie for or against the other in any crimipai action or pro- | ceeding, except to prove the fact of marriage in case of bigamy, or in any action or proceeding instituted in consequence of adultery, or in uny action of divorce on account of adultery, except to ve the fact ol marriage, or in any action on account of criminal conversation,” This rule of evidence is retained at common law, and the | statute, With @ wise respect to tae value of the Inquiry, has seen fit to establisn it as PUBLIC POLICY that in an inquiry of this nature the admission of either party, hushand or wile, as a witness against the other, shall not be tolera to any eXtent whatever, and that any careless expecta- tion of the Legislature tnat would introduce into such issues and controversy vhe testimony of either, and expect to reduce or confine it by any rule, protecting What was just or excluding what ‘was criminal, would be vain and illusory, and Mr. Tyor would have resumed the reading of further } authorities to assert his position in the quea n Mr. Evarts called his atten- the usual time of udjourn- ; Ment lacked but five minutes of expiration und | Mr. Pryor graciously acceded to Conepporars on the other side of the question, | and, closing his book, took bis seat. Judge Netl- | evidence here, ‘he second section of the act | son, alter Warning the assemolage to retain their | | Seats until the jury made their exit, declared the | Court adjourned until eleven o'clock this forencon. NEW YORK CITY. The eighth annual ball of the Italian Rifle Asso- Clation, otherwise Known asthe Colombo Guara, Will take place on Monday night atthe Germania Assembly Rooms, salaries touches no employé im bis department other than those, great and small, who are known to be “Tammany men.” Numerous compisints of extreme cruelty to children are constantly received py the new s0- clety for the prevention of that offence at No, 889 Broadway, corner of Nineteenth street, but the | | from nh | Eighth avenue. Relatives and iriends are invited the wish of lis | | QUINOS, It is said that Comptroller Green’s reduction of SR | ne RE SRE ee ee or ee ene ee OROWLEY.—Suddenly, on CnowLey, Syeatsot age.) Tearedar, Daxter Funeral on Sunda‘, Jannary 31, at one P, late residence in Forty-eightn street, near to attend, ‘ Daanoupiog On Pig 5 26th ines. EMILY Dean. e beloved wile of Alex, Dean and daughter of William Hunt. ace The ‘unerai will take place at the residence, No, - i Raison Lotyres | Brooklyn, on Saturday, at one ». M. Friends and relatives are respec: vited to attend, payne ee ITA Rayon Benet please gopy. ckK.—In Philadelohia, Jaouary RIvven Dook, in the 39th year of his age, ” Dowb.—On Thursday, the 28th tnst., WILtraM P. the beloved child o1 Thomas and Kate Dowd, aged 1 year, 3 months and 28 da Friends of the jamily are respectfully invited to attend the funeral, on Saturday, the 80th, at two o’ctock P. M., from 218 Madison street, New York. DonxscomB.—On Wednesday, January 27, CHARLES 8. DuN8COMS, aged 46 years, The relatives and iriends of the family are in- vited to attend bis funeral, {rom his late resi: dence, at Peckskill, N, Y..0n Saturday, at one pe Re renine leave Grand Central Depot ato and FREEMAN,—At Ravenswood, L. L, Janu: it monia, MARTHA P, FREEMAN, daughter. ore pn Take ERnenn apa atives and friends are respectfally 11 to attend the funeral, from the ‘realdenoe rife brother, John G. Freeman, on Saturday, the 80th cases, for to admit sucn evidence would cause pelted dissensions and disputes; that it is judi- ous that Lord Coke's language, ‘‘As two souls in one per- son,” itis said, No man shall put asunder those Who are thus joined together, and least of all in the name of law shall tae administration of justice subjected to some exceptions, WHEN A HUSBAND COMMITS AN OFFENCE sgainat the persom of his wile the husbana may be cailed as a witness, would lead society tind that they lack the requisite porer to Operate effectively until the passage of the char- | TAT. TION battery ery ay ter which is now before the Legisiature, Hav- THE DOMESTIC RELATION ce and danger. uitimately into equal disgri lied the aod if their starements of | ing oa ttention vi the Court to a case de- A preliminary meeting of young ladies will be | inst., attwoP, M. Carriages at Hunt Pe » Me t pull and tear asunder shall be regarded as sacred, and it would be ex- | facts should contradict each other that would not cided in the Supreme Court, General Term, he | neta at ferry. ssid Peal ys cay osing each Of the parties to domestic dispute. | destroy their competency. It would not follow aH AS Atencio ale RGKS MODGDY eveDtng Jar we upon such contradiction that they were guilty of ape eae | alegre at yl A perjury, and in some cases the wife may hess under pecullar ctrcums' RELATION, by the step of a sheriff, or the precept of a Judge compel one to come and betray the other; it is not woen the question comes belore & court 40 much the interest, or the duty, Circumstances of an inaividual case of marriage when it is brought up for avtention, as the institu. ton itself. It is happy marriages; tt 1s unbroken marriages; itis the Whole system of marriage, b: which bosband and wile are ina supreme confi- dence witu their housebold and im each others’ | emorace; and no inierests of society, no iaw of ‘he 1and can invade it And il any Englishman and every American prides himsel! upon the in- violabliity of bia threshold against the King or a!l the power of government, except within certain Sirict. Mandaies of law authorizing forcible Pussage of tt, how much more important with all that makes inylolability of the | threshold important, to wit:—That the in- violability of the iamily and the protection of marriaye should be sustained by law awainst the edict of the King or the mandate of the country. Now there are various aspects in which this mat: ter presents itseli in respect to this institution of Marriage that don’t pernaps readi'y arise to tne mind as such by the particular circumstances of Any case in which the question is agitated. Let Us suppose that a happy marriage has been in- vaded by a seducer, fessed to her husband, and the husband bas par doued her, and they two, renewing their fidelity, continue and preserve the threatened unity, an have children born them on their renewed vows. Now, whue that fidelity continues, and that hap- piness ts maitained, a stranger, by libel suit, an- dertaxes to fortify uimsell by compelling the hus- band to come and prove his Wire’s pardoned fault, und break (his marriage and disgrace and degrade his children, DOES THE Law DO THAT? I think not. Suppose that im the case I have imag.ned the guilty wite hud as tne partner in her guilt a husband in anotn this pardon and these years of continued is tion und of family, the fruits of it, there comes to be a diificulcy in the first family, of which the se- ducer is the husvand, and by new discoveries of the jealous wile there is an institution of a sult in regard tu that husband’s adultery—to wit, bis adultery with this wile of the other marriage. Now, does our law permit this wile suing for ber divorce to prove the adultery of her husband by bringing trom this other family the husband to rove the adultery of bis wife—nis own wile? Under those circumstances 1 think not, and Rv case can be sound that justifies any Buch proposition. Will the law then allow tue question ol whether the marriage relation is thus | to be disturbed to depend upon the voluntary dis- Postion ol tne husband? 1s that the way the law deuls with the general interests of society? ana if an can imagine the basepess that could bring a usbund into court alter having received a conles- B10N 810 pardoued It and lived with his wile years in that reiation; if you can conceive the baseness ip which the husband should volunteer as a wit- Bess, does ihe law change its role in respect to the Bauctity and the protection of the marriage? I think Your Honor will find that the book justifies nosuch thing. But there is another general rule to this subject in adifferent attitude, and in which the community is interested. Suppose that tne nus- band, instead 01 having discovered an adultery of | bis wile, or invented an adultery of his wile; sap- pose that through the process of law there 1s fought to be worked out a scheme of degradstion jad menace on \he community well known to the pulice, that is the combination of corrupt married persons to make victims of third persons. Now what ig the rule of our law? *Tuat the wie should bring aoont attitudes tmplicating an impropriety,” and then that the husband should ve allowed to come tnto court and prove the wile’s adultery by con- fession? What would be said of the party? No, Unis Jaw in respect to the marriage relation is not merely a law inter se se in its protection of soci- ety—not merely a law inter se se between the mar- tied people—not only a protection of the marriage against the invasion of the one to the injury of the otuer; but it 18 the position of the married people to soclety In which they move that is not to be disturbed. e, if the husband is admitved to tes- tuy in a sutt o1 Unis kind, how the law, defective ana inconsistent necessarily, if it allows it, tn- volves the interests oi justice and throws down the protection of the opposite party. Suppose a husband gives FALSE TESTIMONY by which the defendant is destroyed in that suit, and suppose the wile of the husband can prove its fuisity. 1 do not now speak of her exclusion irom that suit I have already referred to, but when the Geiendant in that money action undertakes to Vindicate truth and justice at the criminal bai and indicts the false withess—the husband—ior perjury, the law says the sanctity of the marriage rel«tion don’t permit you to call his wife to con- Vict him. Ruies of jaw are universal; they are prescient, they are compreliensive and they do Dot undertake to do by halves and imperiectiy What the absolute interests o! society require to be done completely and periectiy. Now, if Your Honor please, as {have no douot Your Honur will consider the question here to be disposed of as grave and important, not only in reier- ence to this trial, but im reference to the general acministration of justice and tie institution of marriage, I may be permitted +o call your attention to the uniform tenor oi the commentators and authorities upon this rule, not so much Oi the law of evidence as of the law of marriage. reason of the rule, the implacable dissensiond Wich might be caused by it and the great danger Ol perjury from taking {he oaths of persons under | 80 great bias and extreme hardship of the Aud Best adds to this observation of Bacon :— bis rule wa8 not limited to protecting irom dis- ciosare matters communicated In nuptial confi- dence, or lacis, the Knowledge of which had peen acquired iu Consequence of the relations of hu» | band and wile, but was an absolute probibition oO! the testimony of tne wituess to any acts aflecting the husband or wile, as the case be, however the knowledge of those might have been acquired.’ He gves on with tis observation, which it is rigut I should cail attention to, though the book shows the limit of 11; but the rule only appiies where the the other was cali¢d as a witness, and did not ex fend to collateral proceedings between third parties. in an action sor wages earned by the wue, Chie! Justice Lee, wuo 1s the eminent suc- cessor oi Lord Hardy, refused to let the wite’s coniexsion of a receipt of baying that husband and wife cannot be aamitted to be witnesses Jor each other, because their in- veresis ure absolutely the same, nor against each | Dther, because contrary to THE LEGAL VOLICY OF MARRIAGE. Coke Middleton says:—‘It has been resolved by the justices that the wile cannot be produced etther against or for her husband, and it wight be | the cause of implacable discord and dissension be- tween the husband and great iaconvenience.” Cunnot be each = other, on account of it being likely to create disputes, ana so is against the policy of marriage, aud this rule is 1ounded Upon tbe policy of the law, and not on the ground of interest.” Gilbert says it would occasion im- placaile divisions and quarrels, and destroy the very legal policy of marriage that was so contrived tout their interest should be as one, which it could never be Il Wives were admitted to destroy the Lu- levests of tneir husbands, and the peace of amilies could not be easily maintained i the law aumitted the vusband in attestation against the wile. ‘ihe rule excluding the husband and wife from testifying against each other is grounded on identity of in- teresta and on public policy, One of our own com- mento tors says the happiuess oi the married state Tequires that there should be a most intimate confidenve bevween husband and wite, and thaj notiing should be extracted irom the bosom of the wile which was confided to her by her linsband, Therefore, after the par- lies are separated, whether by divorce or by death, tue Gusband or wile is stili precluded trom dis- Ciusibg any conversation with each other, ‘tnis exclusion of the husvand and wile Is founded partly upon principles of public and partly upon principles Of private policy and muralliy. Kent, Th his commentaries, says husband and wife can. Espinasse says: he: hot ve Witnesses against each other in a civil | suit, and this 18 a Well settled principle of jaw and | equity, Brooke on “The Law of Evidence” speaks Of this relation 4s coming under a@ rule of this kina, and under no consideration can these par- ties stand in any diferent relation to eacn otner, elinerin the domestic or public relation, It has been before meationes that no one can be a wit- ness lor himseli, and it follows, therefore, that the busband and whe are imoompetent to give evi- cence for or against each other, the law prohibit+ ing them Jrom A GIVING EVIDENCE FOR RACH OTHER, nnd it would be bad if the wile, woo cannot be a “witness tor her husband, iy against hum. The rule does not merely pro- aibit tue husband or wile giving evidence which would crimimate each ovh t goes lurther, and proaioits them giving evidenc eflects may criminate each other, and consent of | either party wil authorize a breach of tt. = Pnile lips, in his “Wvidence,” supports the rule, placing it upon the same principle L have stated and giv. ing As a conclusion of law that he deems it neces- saly to guard the security of private life even at OD Occasional fallure Of justice. They are not wite Aesses against cach otuer, because this is 1ucon. or the particular und that the wile has con- marriage, and alter Bacon’s “Abridgment” gives, as the | 20 be given in evidence, | the wile and a means of | y withesses for each other nor against | pan be Called Upon to teg- | Which in tts future | hen either of them, elther of the parties to the suit, is interested in the general result, the hus- band and wile can be permitted to prove an tact, provided it does not ‘interiere witi | One or the other or disclose any commouni- (Starkey, sen | cation from one with the otner. ‘This Matter Of criminality, as the authorities wil show, means not the exposure to criminal justice, but to the ideas that carry opprobrium. When man and wie are divorceu by act of Parliament tne wile 1s not competen id the relation shoala be kept inviolate, Tyler on Iniancy and Coverture,” edition sixty-eignt, page 320, this proposition is tnaorsed. Now, if we look atthe cases of England, New York and some ot our sis- ter States we wiil also find these propositions, In the third of Douglass, 422, Lord Mansfleld say! “There has never been an instance in a civil or criminal case where the husbanc or the wile has been permitted to be a witness for or against the other, except In cases of necessity, and that necessity 18 not & general necessity, as where pu other witness can be had, but a necessity where, fur instance, the wife would be otherwise exposed without remedy to personal injury, 1 think the husband would not be a competent | witness. Now, the husband was there calied by the defendent to prove the former's marriage to plaintim, who had sued, and on nis evidence was non-suited.” ‘The case of necessity, as Your Honor 1s aware, 14 that where the wife is per- mitted in criminal law to testify against personal violence, if otherwise the husband would be pro- tected by law ugainst all sources of personal and Private injury to the wile, In Davis vs. Dil- worthy, by our second Chief santion, page 678,.the role 1s Jaid down :—“Independently of the question of interest, husbands and Wives are not permitted a8 witnesses either for or against each other, and irom their being so nearly connected they are supposed to have sucha bias upon their minds that they are not permitted to give evidence either for or against each other.” Now to show that divorce does not open the mouths of eitner party to @ previous warriage. In the case of Monroe vs. Crissam, in ‘Additional Cases,” page 219, Lord Alvay refers to the testimony of a lady divorced from her husband, SHE WAS BOUND TO SECRECY when married, and what she did was 1n view of the confidence placed in her vy her husband, Lord Al- vay says:—it shall here be evidence that the con- fidence which the law has created while the parties are bound in the most intimate of ail relations, sball be broken wheuever by tne misconduct of né party, aud only misconduct cau have that ef- fect. that relation bas been dissolved.” “In case,’ the Chiet Justice says, “Ihave ever refused to al- low a woman, alter divorce, to speak of the con- verastions that were had between herself and her husband during the existence of the marriage, I am satisfied that the propriety of that decision und that the happiness o! the marriage state re- quires that the contidence between nan and wife should be kept forever invioiate.” Again, in Filth Scowws New Reports, page 384, following the Munroe decision, the Court was unan- imous in saving as toliow: “The shall never give evidence either for or against her busband nor for him because their interests are the same, nor agalnst him for thereby dissension and dispute might arise in Jamilies. We are asked to contine our jadgment * only to cases of confidential nature, but I think that would be injurious and inconvenient. It is better to aoide by the law and follow the judgment in the case of Monroe against Crissam, thatis bet- ver and pounder ruling.” in Barber against Alien the exclusion doc not stand on the ground of the copjugal communication. The opinion is:—"I am not prepared to express assent to ibese observu- tions, but rule that so far as law can reapect these communications it uoes so, and all itcan do. so In ali interests where the husband and wile are not parties to a proceeding it will.” In Hapleton against Clark, twenty-fret ‘Law Journal,’ it was hela, Lord Campbell giving the opinion; it was to introduce @& certain latitude for husband and wile; but the qualification was that it rests not only on tne ground of interest bat of union and incapacity; the onl; reason ts tu preserve the basts ol iamilies. Wight- mao says the reason tor ruling the evidence in question rests not merely on the interest but ona much larger view of the relations existing be- | Now, the New York | tween husband aud wile, cases to wiicn Lt call Your Honor’s attention begin With some important observations. ‘The People vs. Mercer, which Your Honor will recollect 1s having to do with the rigne of @ parent with re- | spect to her children, alworth, Chancellor, ob- | serves that a wife is prohivited trom being a | witness against her husband; that the happiness Ol! the marriage relation requires that perfect con- fidence should exist between husband and wile and that the knowledge of affairs which he ireely communicated to ner should not be given in evi- dence against pim jor his injury by his wile, to whom he had communicated tuese matters, AFTER RECESS, Mr. Evarts—if Your Honor please, I have been directed to a line of authorities in our own Court a littie sooner than I snould have been, and I wish to cali Your Honor’s attention toa case of some importance under the general rule.. I cite the case of King vs. Line, stn Hast., page 193, the opinion given by Lord Ellenvborougn. This was @ case know to the Hnglish law and to our laws as a bastardy case. The pot, as Your Honor under- stands, was to fx the responsibility o1 a putative Jather for a bastard Cuild to save te public from the expense otherwise entatled upon it. And tie tenor of those cases, which in forin are of a crim nal character, have the same public reputation ag against a putative father, So Your Honor sees no party intervenes there to make a ruling growing out of @ man who Is the lather; the character of a party 18 on one side and the putative fa'ner on the other, After the bastard child was atiributed toa man, {tcame up whether tne mother of that bastard, being 4 married woman, the husband of the womaa should be admitted as & witness to prove anything that ten to pros duce the conclusion of the aduitery of his wife, She being the mother of tnis child, not by ber nus: band, but by the putative father. And when, by Part ol the proof belore the public, it was proved | that this child, vorn of parents in wedlock. was | Rot the child of the husband but ot t putativ husband or wiie was a party to the suit in which | he putative father, and when the necessary link or important | link was or might be proved by the non-access of | husband tothe wile during tne perioa of gesta- von of che child, and the hosband in the ordinary Recessities and convenience of the law wouid ba the natural witness to prove that incidental fact im relerence to his wife's adultery and his | Mou-access during the period of gestation of the child. And it was held by the courts that the husband could not be aa- mitted as a Witness to prove non-access, on the ground of the marital reiauions, that he conld not be allowed to furnish testimony that formed any part of the proof and the imputation of this great criminality on the part of the wife; and; 1 use the word “criminality” in regard to this offence or Bin because it is @ language uniformly used in the law books, and docs not turn upon the question whetoer adultery has been mage by imputation as it was at common law acrime. Tte Engiish Court has found in reference to tuis Kind o1 a case, and this point is excluded BY THAT POLICY OF THE LAW, that it is not permitted of a husvand or wife to testify concerning one or che other ana to preju- dice one or tie other in matters of this nature. Counsel here quoted irom Lord Ellenvorough to show that @ husoand coild not testily agaist his wue or &@ Wile against ier husband where the nature of their relations would make such testimony prejudiciai io one or che other, Now this case, dealing wita the general proposition Which applies to that tine oj cases, came up tor consideration tn another case:—The King against the inpabitants of Kea, in the Lith o: t., 152. A woman cannot give evidence o1 the non-access of her husband to bastardize her issue, thoaga he be dead at the time of her examination asa wit ness; and therefure an order of sessions, stated by that Court to be founded in part upon cre- dence given to hi tesumony O1 that lact, was quashed. Lord Ellenborough, C. J., when this case was Called on, said that to hold this evidence receivable would be tu direct contradiction to the Kiug against Reading, and otner cases, which were lot meant to be overruled in the King azainst Luffe, the Courtin that case intending that the wile bh been examined only as to the Jacts which she wight legally prove, and not to the non access of the husbund, tre principle of public policy precinding her trom being a witness to that fact. And the rest of the Coart signited their concurrence tn this opinion, Mr. Evaris proceeded to argue chat a difference | was made in that case and tn this case, because | When the Wile Was called ker nusoand was dexd; | and they argued tat pot, and said it was weil considered, the rule stood on the broad groun rai bude pol afecting the caild | born during marriage as well 2s the parties them- | Seives, taey could net and did not argue in sup. portol the order. The Court abanimously assented bo this, and Lebiane, Juuge, added that they were bound to notice the Objection taken to the wife to Prove the fact of non access. We cannot oring a book we wanted irom the library, and | refer Your Honor and my learned frieud to the case or Coke | vs, Coke (I Mooay & tn, 269), a more inovern case, and in our American reports, tn the case of the State vs. Preeland, which sustains Bnglish c_.ses, ON THR SAMB PRINCIPLE tn the case of the state against Pettiway, In 8 of Hawks’ Nowth Caroling Keports; the case | 110, says:—"The husband, even aiter divorce, Wile | | being interested.” | this dectsion is given, is the common Jawas I | these | a wit oes, when the hus- Now, to the Twill direct ‘The wife cannot be B witness to | crimtnate her husband. or to state dythiog she | has learned irom him in their confidentia! inter: course. 1'ne rule which protects domestic relations from exposure rests upon considerations connected with the basis of character, And it is considered | that this principle does not afford protection to the husband and wile while they are at liberty to 1 voke it at their discretion when the question is propounded, but 1§ renders tuem incompetent to disclose facts with relation to the tssuc. ‘There was a suit in which the husband had testi- | fied, and he was now dead, but the wife was pro- | duced as a witness to contradict some ef the | statements of the husband and to show that the | action was not us he hud represented it, or as the husband nad stated the oir- cumstances to be. Mr, Justice McLean de- | livered the opinion of the Court, and it Was concurred in by the whole Bench of justices, | which at that time tncluded the laze eminent | Chief Justice Taney, Judge Thompson, Judge Pe- ters and others equally eminent. The opinion pro- muigated by these eminent Judges established the | proposition that ita Axed princtpie required | by the interests of society that the wile shall be | excluded from testifying under the circumstances T have named, | [t is not intended to lay down any Tule as to how far A WIFE MAY BE EXAMINED On questions which interest the husband, or which May seem to have a bearing on the circumstances of the case. The optoion also alludes to the statutes which have been enacted to protect attorneys in such cases, and contrasts them with the statutes enacted for the protection of the domestic rela-" tion, and shows very conclusively that the wie must be excluded from testifying to 1acts In ev! dence against husband, ‘The case 1am speak- | ing of was against the husband, and the wife was called upon to testify that he haa perjured himseit by bis own confession, which he had made in all the confidence which exists between husoand and | wile, It 18 true that the husband was dead, but that did not weaken tue proposition that the wile cannot be allowed to render or give testimony against her husband, and that was held to be necessary as a measure of uvlic§ policy, aud established 8 principle of private necessity. ‘these opinions were concurred in by all the judges of thac court, Judge Gaston, whose repute is weli known to the lawyers of this country, a celebrated South Carolina Judge, in the case of the State agaiunt Shelly, $8 of Delevant and Baitic’s Reports, Pp. 8 not competent to prove the adultery of bis wile on her prosecution therefor.” The next case to Watch [ shall call your attention is ta New | York—that of Babcock against Reeves, 2 of Hill, p. 181, opinton by Judge Bronson. The Court Says:—‘‘It 18 sound policy to exclude the wile, even 1! the nusbund 1s dead, from disclosing any Kaowl- edge that came to her in the sauctity uf the mar- riage relation which once existed between herself and bimsell, so far as ne was the subject of the couversatiou.” In Barrell against Babcock, it is laid down on page 15 that the role Was established that a husband cannot testify, nor can the wile, either for or azainst each other in civil cases, that would refer to tne nus- band’s communication or the wile’s, that had been confidentiat or otherwise. Neither can be admitted, for the marriage relation that had ex- | isted between them during marriage, or that bad come to their knowledge by reason of their being hosband and wife. Hatranck vs. Vanderpool, 9 . 153: he husband is not a competent witness for the trustee of his wife’s separate es- tate, The testimony of husband or wue, where either 18 a party, Was exciuded not at all beiore | the principie of interest.’ Jobnson, of the Court of Appeals, goes through she numerous rules of law as existing in this State as to the common beipg the same as I have quoted, as I under- stand them 18 very clear that the rule of THE EXCLUSION OF HUSBAND OR WIFE, whether the other is 8 RF, interested ip the event or not, had depen merely upon the ex- istence Of tne marriage relation, and not at all on the existence of the principle of a witness | The argament here was tnat | our law having changed the rule of evidence ex- | cluding interested witnesses rested on the ground | O! interest. The Court excluded that and said, | “No, the rule that exciuded tne husband and wife | 48 & part of the rule of the institution of marriage; | and the change of the rule in the respect ol ine | terest, as uffec'ing the witness in general or pare | ties in general, does not touch that relacion.” And the Court in the consideration oi the question at | common law excluded the husband, not upon the ground of interest in the event, bus that he must H Temain incompetent until some statute shall re. | sume that ground of incompetency. Now a statute | was passed In 1867 wmich opens.the tesiimony of | the huspana and wife toacertain extent and in | certuin cases, The report which I now read from arose aiter It was affected by the statute. It | is in the 49 New York Reports, Soutawick | against Southwick, p.510. Now, the action was brought by the piaintiff against her husvaad to re- | cover @ balance of; money 1D ils hands received by | iim as her agent. On the trial the detendant of- fered himsel! as a witness in nis own behalf, out | the plainti(i’s counsel objected on account of | moneyed toterest between the nusband ana the | wife, for which the wife sued, Now, as I under- stand Irom the cXamination of this case, the com- | petency of tne witness for the evidence for waich | he was called was within the allowance of this suit, and the question was whether the principle by which death or divorce excluded 1t at common law just as chorougily as evidence in the marriage relation excluded such testimony—whether this 4 statute Would be considered us letting in evidence arising im the cause of marrfage, whicn evidence | arises prior to the passage of the act, | THAT IS THE SOLITARY POINT to be decided, and of course I do not cite the case | for that purpose, but a3 a necessary instance for | judicial determination, and whether tae witness’ | offer was exciuded or not it became necessary for | tue Court to determine what the rule of common law and theory of the statute on this point was or | whetner it did not entirely rest, wot upon tnter- est, but upon the marital relations, I huve ex- amined, tnerefore, this line of cases to which I have generally called your attention perhaps more thun the court which had it tn view, that the common law of this State, up to the time bave given i¢ in the Engish aathorittes, and would exclude, and does exclude, any evidence | of the husband bearing against the interests or |/ the character of his wile, or the wife against the | husband, a8 well as uny question involving the interest of one or the otner. And then the question was, what had this stavute ot 1867 done in reierence to this rule of husband and wife, aud she protection of either as | @ Witness in @ Controversy in which the character | and the interests of one or the other were con- cerbed. And the proposition that this statute must be considered as enabling one to testify and nos the other 1s untenanle, and it cannot be assumed that the statute o: 1367 vas changed the statute of the common law in its application to the question, We tnus have the highest autaor- ities vi our State to sustain the proposition, and until the statute changes tne commou law will be appiical toa case of this kind. It remaing the law of this State that a witness proposed as tnis one 1s mast be excluded. Now at common law a party could be #& Witness—no iormer party to a suit could be «& witness—and as ii a jong itne, a large number oi cases, in Which this question may jave arisen but for the fact that one party or other—the witness was a party—it could not arise because the common law dit not admit parties as witnesses, Our code bas put the matter of parties—ana my learned friend will sustain my proposition, | think—simply Upon the ground tiat @ party 1s pot, Irom the fact of veing a party, TO BE EXCLUDED AS A WITNESS, and the question when a party 1s called ts the same as to lis exclusion a8 It would be if be were nota party, There is nothing. therefore, in that that Changes the rule of the common law, In tom regard Mr, Tilton 18 no more adimissible alter | being a party here than ne would be i! he were | Dot a party, Tien came the act of 1867, which was intended to moderate and qualify on matters of interest =the =exciusion o; ‘husband and Wie. Then the pie that inter: ested = witnesses should no longer be | excluded, or efforts to introduce husband and wile on the ground that their exclusion | rested upon interest, tailed belore the courts; for they said 10, It rests Upon the Marriage reiations, Now, one jegisivture tas varied the rule of com | mon jaw to liberalize the production of evidence in other matter in wich they are concerned, 1 call attention to the session laws, second volume of the Laws of 1867, 2.221, It ts @ brief law, and | Your Honor’s attention bas of course been catied | to it: “In y suit, action or proceeding tn an court, or belore Any person baving by las or sent of parties authority to examine witnesses or hear evidence, the husband or wie ol any party | of aby person in whoge benail any suca tion of proceeding ts brought, prosecuted, Opposed or defended, shall, as beretnufter stated, bo competent and compellant to give evidence the Same as aby Other Witness on behalf of any party giant of thought, plausibility and scholarship. spoke to the point vesterday ani with ali ingenious | nevertheless, witness Was called to prove was the marriage between him and his wife. That was not a ques- tion arising in tue conjdence of marriage. MARRIAGE was always celebrated in the face of the church and of the world. Therefore proof of that fact did Not come within any reason or rule of exclusion from its arising in the coniidence of marriage. The parties were in humbie life, and had be married by a Justice of tne Peace, attendance Of troops of iriends. the Peace was dead. The record of the warriage ‘Was ound to be dejective, and could not be used as evidence, The piatutis was offered as a wit- ness to prove the marriage. Under the rule arising from marital relations he would be @ good witness. fle was excluded, Every effort of Coun- sel relying on the statutory ruie of 1867, by which the witness could be called, was overruled by the Court, althougn tue statute had expressly held thatin a eee of vigamy the marriag> m.ght be proved py'the Lusbaud or wiie, aud that iu an action for divorce, though the parties were excluded trom every other part, they coula be ad- mitted to prove the fact of the marriage, and that no sUch saving right could be applied to an action jor crim. cou. And the Court could not find, in tne charge of the common law, anything applicavle to an action of vrim. con. in the statute books of the state of New York. what statute of New York Mr. Tilton is competent as @ witness in this action. He stands in the same position now, Now it may seem, if the Court please, that there is some notion of fairness 1m respect to the testimony, pro and con, in this case whether the plaintif might reasonably ve expected to be admitted as a witness if the de- Jendaut is. ‘Ihe diMculty 1s that he is tied by the rules of law that relate jo and sustain, against bis will, his loyaity to the marriage vow ana to iis wile, in order that all other meu may know that LOYALTY TO THE MARRIAGE RELATION is part of the jaw of the land, not depending upon the capricious will oi any person. How tneqai.a- bie would be @ cnange in the law that should | change tne marriage relation in its sauctity, which would open the mouth of the husband and close that ofthe wie! What precludes Mrs. Tilten trum betng & witness In this case ? is she to prove any disgrace to ner busbaud? No. ls sie to prove any peril or ruin to her cuildren? None, She cannot testity against the money in‘erest of her husbaad. that ground, on the charge that the sturute his introduced here, yet it cannot be supposed that the common law which sauts the moutn of the witness who knows the truth, aud whom the law presumes innocent till she 1s ound guilty, can- hot delend herseif because she is the wife of | this husvand who can destroy her because he 18 the husband of this wie. | apprehend the com. Mov law hus been guilty of no such folly since its Joundation. (Suppressed applause.) Mr. Evarts’ manner was classical, elegant, diffu- sive and excellent in model, as we all know tt to be. He is, forasmall and meagre ian, a litile He amplification, and the witness watched him like the most patient auditor. MR. PRYOR REPLIES. General Pryor, on opening iis address, sald that be would retrain irom luduiging in replies techni- cal to law with which the Court was familiar. and would not urge any points which do not bear on the question. ‘the question is sunply this:—is the plaintif io this action, brought ior criminal con- Versation, a competent witness on nis own be- bait?’ I¢is not pretended by us thatin the com- mon law the plaintiff would have been 1m such an action & competent wituers. arbitrarily and peremptorily excluded all persons most jamilar with the circumstunces of tne case, | and, thereiore, Most competent lo throw light upon tne subject from the wivness bo. They uamitted Bhat point of the argument. inese unjust and prommpcuous ideas were, however, exploded, and jad all perished as unphilosupnical and unjust. Jerewy Bentham contended ior the credivility, and would leave all persens to be judged by the jery, Soon the sentiments o: Kentham bevame the jurisprudence of Britwin. ‘ihe counsel reierred to enabling acts of Lo:d Venman, in 1847. remu lng incompetencies arisiug irom “iniancy,” & terest and coverture in Engiand, he spirit of reform in the State Legtslature of New York In 1843 avolished the lacompeiency of persons testilying because of pecultar religious tenets, oonox- 108 laws Were Wiped out, and in 1837 the Legisia- ture accorded to the husvand and wile the right to testiy in pis or her behali, And now even the criminal indicted is allowed to testify im bis own behali. We have so changed tie oid common law that the barbarous enactments vave been re- moved, These changes tave always been made to enlarge and ampilty the rules of evidence. The plaintiff is, under the amended statutes, tuerelure admitted to tell lis own story oF MISERY, WREICHEDNESS AND WRONG, Tne Legislature, in amending the act of 1857, did not intend to break down the competency of the husband or Wie as a witness, out desired to clearly express the rignt of either to give evi- dence where they are not parvies to the case as the one against the other. case where a husband and slander and offered tiemscives as witnesses. Tney Were excluded by the Court, and a verdict was given for tne plaintiil., Tue case was ap- pealed to the Genera: ‘Term and cided that they snouid nave been received as Wit- nesses, They were parties io the record, and should have been allowed to tesitiy. In the case of Porter vs, Marsh tue same right was acceded by the Court. ‘Ihe authorities show that no lmi- tation oF restriciton 18 made by tie law-making power, There can be no act which will preclude @ witness taking the Witness chair and testiy- ing in Ms own behali. A husband swore im an action jor divorce that i had not been intumate witn bis wiie, and he was indicted Jor perjury, fhe Court of Appeals ruled that tue husband cduld testity, ne bein a party directly 11 imerest. In Hooper Hooper, the Court says, reterring to the act of 1857, “that the disability to give evidence in one’s own venall is removed irom all parties, ti tue words of the Legisiature are to be taken at their plain meaning.” THE FRAMERS OF THE ACT knew that married women and tueir husbands were in many cases necessary witnesses, and tf they were to be excluded the Lewisiature would have signified tts intention in so many words, In Hall vs. Hall it is neid that though hus. band and wile may not testily agaist each other, eacn is competent in wis or ler own behali, In Artbin againse Waite, an action for erwin. con,, it 1s dectaed that a wile coald not be a witness, solely vecause she was not» party to the action, In the cace of Smith vs. Smith, which was a suit for divorce on toe ground of adultery, was admitted as a witness, Tue action brought by Maverick and wife ainst the oixth Avenue Katlroad Company, of New York, the husband Was aeclared a competent witness, although he was jointly @ party to thatsutt. Judge Muilen says, ‘a party wo an action may be ace cepted in hisown behalf the same as any other witness.” In the case of Parker against White, it was decided that in an action ot criminal conver- sation, the Wile is an incompetent witness, as she does not really appeur asa party v1 the action, One principle stands out salient and unconiested, that when husdand Wile are not both parties to the ace ton, the husband or wile who 1s a party 1s compe- tent to vestily. lion 18 entitied as aright, because he is a party, to be admitted to the witness box and testily because he or she does against husband or wie Who is also & party to the action. itis plaintit to this action is thereiore a competent and ad- missible witness, ‘fhe law says uone shall be ex- cluded vbecatise o1 being # party Co the action. This Witness, at common jaw, Would not be a compe- tent Witness, solely because he was & party to action, When the act says he shall not be ex- cluded for that reason then all incompetency 18 taken away. Judge Wright adinits tis principle in the case of beakham against Pillip, where it Was argued that tue husband could not testify against is wile whe tion, Lt was suown that if that DISABILITY WAS REMOVED every otber disaoility Would tall. [tis not to be presumed in view of tis series of legislation that the Legisiature would recede irom its Old pathway, ior the act of 1867 dues not: conflict with the act of 1857. It ia nov to be relapsed into tne common law, The two acta run along in paraliel lines to infinity without col- lasion or tmpediment—tie one supplementing the other. He read the act of 1sd7 In support of his argument, and showed hat a withess having a smal pecumary inte In & Case had been de. clared to be Incompetent. aliy, though not victuously, te might be argued, a arty wo this cage, Sue ainly had an interest Dn the case—that of reputation, of moral ¢ ter; butehe is not lawiuily a party in this a either tor or against ber husvand, She woul be incompetent to testity on the other side «4a witness jor the dejence while ner husbaad is the piaimiut ANJOURNM In concluding wis remarks he said, in suo- stanee :—Having demonstrated this poimt on the Act Ol 1867, the witness 18 competent to take the Witness box and testify 1p lis own beball, and the Panopliod pomp and circumstances of judicial We are unable to see by | The common law excludes her on | The common law | The counsei cited a | wife were sued for | their compe- | | Sency as Witnesses was sustained, as it was de- very person in any and every ac- | he Was a party to the ac- | Mrs. Tiiton was virtua. | | the purpose of forming a Christian Assoctation. Addresses will be delivered by Rev. Dr. Adams, Mr. Whitelaw Reid and Mr. William E. Dodge, Jr., who will discuss some of the diMcuities now | surrounding woman’s work, and plans whereby they may be met and overcom: | the Polaris expedition to the Arctic regions, will be delivered to-night at Steinway Hall. It can | Scarely iail to be pleasing and tn: ve, Cap | tain SO, Buddington, who took jad of the Polaris atter the death of Captal lt will be presen the lecture, a8 well as other ex- Plorers of the drear regions of the th. of Thomas Paine. He was born on January 29, 1737, There usec to be a celebration of this event | by a society of free thinkers, but this association | seems to have been broken up, and now the re- | mowned advovate of freedom in everything bas | None to do him public honor. The piace where be | Was buried in New Rochelle | trivial mark, Paine’s body was removed irom it | years ago, and recently .the grave itself was | ploughed over, | A monthly meeting of the New York Medico- Legal Society was held last night in the College of | Physicians and Surgeons, at the corner of Twenty-third street and Fourth avenue. The meeting was called to hsten to @ | lecture by Mr. Kdward Patterson, of the | New York Bar, on the aubject of ‘Monomania | a8 Affecting Testamentary Capacity.” The lecturer took the ground that the evidence of persons sup- | posed to be insane or iu the least troubled with | mental incapacity shou!d not be taken, nor should | awill ba admitted to probate made by persons wh» were in the least demented, The obsequtes of Mrs. Severn D. Moulton, mother | of Francis D. Moulton, who died on Tuesday last, attracted to the late residence of the deceased a | large number of friends and a few wno went out of idle curiosity. The services were held at three | o'clock P, M. trom the family residence, No. 580 Lexington avenue, The immediate trends and Telatives met at the house, most of them reaching the residence on foot, and paid thetr last respects to Lhe Memory of the deceased lady by munifesta- tions of deep grie!, Very iew carriages were | drawn up about the place, and the services as a | whole were very sinple. Rev, Mr. Wakeley, of the Methodist Fpiscopa| Church, delivered an impres- sive discourse, in which he dwelt at length upon | the many Christian virtues of the deceased, he | remains were Interred tn Greenwood. BROOKLYN. There are 600 men employed in the Brooklyn Navy Yard, of which number 200 will be discharged oo Monday next. . | | Mary Huren, thirty years of age, residing at No. | 1,011 Third avenue, while in a fit, fell on a@ stove | and was fatally burned. She was removed to the | | hospital, Ten of the eighty-six letter carriers of the | Brooklyn Post Ofice will be discharged this week. | Economy is the reason assigned tur the reduction of the jorce. About $100 worth of silverware, stolen from the | residence of Mr. Adolphus, of No. 117 Adelphi Strect, was found in the gutter on Washington Street, near Front. by Mr. Walker, of No. 18 Tal- mar street, and was re'utned to the owner. The | police are still looking alter the rogues. NEW JERSEY. A shocking accident occurred on the Erte Rail- Way, near the Provost street crossing, in Jersey | City, on Wednesday night. James Gimore, of | | | Union Hill, attempted to jump 9n a ireight train, | | but sipped and fell backward. Betore he could recover his balance @ locomotive coming in the opposite direction struck him. The workmen | describe his cries and moans as irightiul while the mangling process was zoing on. One leg and one atm were severed irom the body. He was conveyed to St. Francis’ Hospital, but medical aid was una- vailing. te died yesterday morning. | Mr. Sandiord, President of the Union Bank of | Jersey City, which was suspended two weeks ago, has notified the depositors to send in their pass books that they may be examined, As soon as | the necessary clerical work 1a completed he prom- | ises that a dividend on the deposits will be an- nounced without delay; whatever losses may be sustained Will fall upon the stockholders. Stren- uous efforts have been made by sume of the stock- | holders looking to @ resamption of business but there is no probability the bank wili be re-opened. Mr. Sandiord is bow acting as receiver. $e MARRIAGES AND DEATHS. | MARRIED. 1 ‘ arrgnscury—Krnpy.—On Wednesday, January 20, at st. John’s Protestant Episcopal charch, Brook- lyo, by Rev. 'f. 5. Pycott, ROvERT B. ATTERBURY to ‘ANNIE P., daughter of Francis C. Kirby, all of Biooklyn, No cards, ULARK—HOrKINSs,—On Tuesday. Jannary 26, 1875, Epaan B. CLarnk to Epira E. Horxrys, youngest daughter of Jonn Hopkins, all of Brooklyn. Gibson—McIntyRe.—On Wednesday, January 27, by the Rev. Jonn Hall, D. D.. a& the residence of the bride’s parents, WiLuiaM J. SON to EMILY, eldest daughter of Ewen Molntyre, Esq., all of this city. Irvinc—Gay.—On Wednesday, January 27, 1875, by Rev. F. Bottome, Wiliam H. IRvING to L. IMOGENE, daughter of Wilkes Gay, all of this city. No cards. | .. MoNTANYE—BowyeR,—On Wednesday, Januar: 27. at the residence of the bride, by Rev. 4. D. Burchard, G. EDWARD MONTANE to Miss LOTTIE J. Bow all of this city. No cards, PLAAT—MARTENS.—On Tharaday, January 2x, R, | 1875, MAX A. PLAAT tO DORA FERDINANDINE Mar: | TENS, by the Rev. Dr. G. Gotthei!, at the residence of the bride's parents, in Brooklyn. RisLET—BRIGGS.—At St, Andrew's church, Har- Jem, on Wednesday, January 27, by the Rev. Dr. | George B. Draper, ALBERT RiBLer to Mary J, BRIGGS, Doth o1 this city. KICHARDSON—BAKER.—On Wednesday, January | 2%, at se Rev. Bartholomew's church, by the Samuel Cooke, D. D., Thomas CHESLEY RICHARD- 50N to EMMA M,, daughter of Peter C. Baker, Esq., all of this city. DIED. | _ ABBoTT.—On Wednesday, January 27, after @ short illness, WILLIAM SLAZBUCK, Son of Rev. W. P. and the late Lizzie W. Abbott, aged 3 months, Relatives and irrends of the family are respect~ | fully invited to attend the funeral services, on Fri- | day morning, at ten o'clock, irom the residence of his father, No. S80 Macdougal street. ABERCROMBIR.—At Jersey City, on January 27, Maky J., widow of the late Rev. Dr. James Ab | crombie, of Philadelphia, and mother of the Rev. Dr. R. M. Abercrombie, of Jersey City. Funeral on Friday, 29th inet,, at three P. M., from St. Matthew's church, Sussex street, Jersey City. Atpk.—On Thursday, January 26. WILLIAM AIDE, aged 4 years and 9 months, Funeral will take place on Saturday, 30th inst. at ten o'clock A, M., irom 1,059 Second avenue, ARCHER.—At Howard City, Kan., NATHANIEL O8- oop ARCHER, formerly ot Salem, Masa, aged 65 years, | BEARD.—At West Rutherford, on January 27, | Mary W. BRARD, aged 45 years, Boourre.—On Thursday, January 28, at the re. sidence of his uncle, 154 Ninth avenue, CHARLEs, | only son of Adam and Nancy Boohite. aged 20 years and 6 days | _Funerai at the Presbyterian church, Higbland Falis, Orange county, on Sunday, January 31, at two o'clock P. My invited to attend, BRADY. -On Wednesday, January 27, at bis rest- dence, 100 West Fiity-iourth street, PATRICK BRapy, late of Philadelphia, in the 75th year ot his On Wednesday, January 27, SoLnomMoNn dd von of Mary J. an’ the jate Neilson Wer, aged 20 years, 10 months and 13 days. |. Relatives and“ triends of + Mily, Aso bers of the Graniercy Boat Ci dence, No. West Twenty-sixth o'clock, on Sunday, 31st inst. taken to Tarrytown tor interment. CoNRAIDER.—-On Tnesaay, January EACuoUR, the beloved wits of H. Conratder, aged years, | ‘Friends and members of St. Cecile Lodge, No. | 568, F. and A. M., are invited to attend the funeral, this UN ipsnandl afternoon, at hall-past o’clock, irom No, 4 First street, Paria (France) papers please copy. The leoture by M. Emti Schumann, descriptive of | To-day is the 138th anniversary of the birthday | | Tenth street and Second avenue, | Morning, at eleven o'clock, not even the most | full residence, On Sunday, at two o'clock. Carriages | Damed residence, at one o’clock on Friday, th | 20th inst.; thence to Calvary Cemetery for inte! | M, SEaRs The triends of the family are | church, corner em- | Sixth avenne, at ter o’ciock A. M. on Saturuay, are respectinily invited to attend the funeral, from bis late resi- street, at ten ‘The remains will be 26, ANNA twelve GLass.—On January 28, 1875, ALEXANDER Guass, aged 69, a native of Scotland. The funeral will take place from the residence of his son, 119 Oak street, Greenpoint, Long Istand, on Satarday, January 30, at two P.M. Friends al the family are respectfuily invited. + GLEASON.—JOUN GLEASON, aged 26 years, son of the late William Gleason, of Carrigarostiga, perish of Killeagh, county Cork, Ireland. Funeral from his late residence, 582 West For tleth street, on Friday, 29tn inst., at ten minutes ot two o'clock. Friends and acquaintances are requested to attend. January 27, GRaHaM.—On Wednesday, 1875, Many C, E. GRAHAM, aged 18 years and 6 months, only onild of Jacob H. and Emily R. Graham. Relatives and friends are respectfully invited te attend the funeral service at St. Mark's church, this (Friday) Hays—On Thursday, January 28, after a short illness, WILLIE H., son of Samuel and Maria Hays, aged 3 years and 5 months, Relatives and friends are invited to attend the funeral, trom the Church of the Holy Apostles, corner Ninth avenue and Twenty-eigath street, om Saturday, at hail-past twelve o'clock. Hogron.—At Waite Plains, on Thursday, Jane ary 2% SaRax, wife of Joshua Horton, in the 77th year of her age. Relatives and irtends of the family are respect- invited to attend the funeral, from her late will be in waiting on arrival of nine A.M. tram from Forty-second street, Jupaz.—On Thursday morning, January 2% Henry Jup¢r, in the 3ist year of his ag The funeral will take place trom his late rest» dence, No. 508 East Seventeenth street, on Satur. day, January 30, at one o'clock P. M. Relatives and friends are respectfully invited to attend, KinG.—On Thursday, January 28, WILLIAM King, aged 60 years. The relatives and friends of the family are re Spectiully invited to attend the funeral, from the Church of the Annanciatton, Maunattanville, on Saturday, January 30, at one P. M. Kipr.—At teawan, N. J,. on Thursday, Janae ary 28, Emma J., wife of Captain Charles: B. Kipp and daughter of Edward H. Dominick, iormerly of | this city. KITson.—Suddenly, at ber residence, No. 151 Union street, Sontn Brooklyn, on Tuesday morn- ing, January 26, ANNA E., the beloved wife of John C, Kitson, agea 38 years, 3 months and 8 days, The iriends of the jamliy, and alsv those of her brothers, John and James McGuire, are respect. Jully tnvited to attend the funeral, irom the above ment. San Franctsco (Cal) papers please copy. Lavy.—Oo Tharsday morning, January 28, at | mine o’clock, Harrie, beloved daughter of Hyman and Henrietta Levy, aged 8 years and 8 months, ‘The relatives and friends or the family are ree specitully invited to attend the funeral, at tem o'clock, irom 318 Eas’ Filty-sixth street. LIVERMORE.—Suddenly, on fiursday morning, ROBERT, youngest son o! W. F. ana Jane H. Livers more, aged 6 months and 3 days. Relatives and friends are invited to attend the funeral, from the residence of his parents, No. 925 Madison avenue, on Saturday, at one o’ciock. LupLow.—On Thursday, January 28, at her late residence, 39 West Fourteenth street, Mrs. MARY | P. LUDLOW, widow of the late Kobert Cc. Ludlow, Of thi city. The Irieuds of the famiiy are invited to attend the funeral, from her late residence, on Saturday, January 30, at balf-past ten A. M. Charleston (S. U.) papers please copy. MITCHELL.—At her residence, Manhasset, L. L, on Wednesday, January 27, Mrs, M. O. MITCHELL! widow o/ the late John I. Mitchell, Esq. Reiatives and iriends are invited to attend the funeral, from the residence, at one o'clock, and half-past one o'clock at Christ church, Maniasset, on Sunday, January 81. Convesances will be at the depot, Great Neck, on the arrival of the balf& past pine train irom fiunter’s Point. McCoMB.—On Wednesday, January 27, ANN Jang McComs, in the 47th year of her age, ‘The funeral will take place this (Friday), attwo P. M., irom her late residence, No, 119 Hurom street, Greenpoint. Nasi.—In Brooklyn, on January 27, 1875, sad. denly, at his residence, 206 Dean street, D. D. Nasu, in the 64th year ot his age. Relatives and friends are respectfully invited to atiend the funeral, at two o’clock, on Saturday. NicHoLson.—On Wednesday, Jauuary 27, Sata E., wife of Albert B, Nicholson, 1n the 40th year of ler age. Relatives and iriends of the family are respect fully invited to attend the /unerai, trom her late residence, 406 West Fiity-flich sireet, on Sunday, Sist IDst., at one O'clock P. M. U’BRIEN.—At_ his residence, 455 Second avenue, January 28, WILLIAM ©, O'BRIEN, Cierk of Sixth District Court. Notice of funeral hereafter, Pgacocx.—On Thursday morning, January 28, MARY ANNABELLA, daughter of Wi lam and Anna- bella Peacock. Relatives and friends of the family are respect fully invited to attend the faneral, on Friday aiter- noon, at one o'clock, irom the residence of her parents, 173 Seventh avenue, Poot.—On Lhursday morning, January 28, 1875, GORGE FRANCIS, Only son of George W. aud Mar garetta B. Pool, aged 1 year, 8 months and 26 days, de! his parents, No, 192 Forty-iourth street, Soatn Brookiyn, on Saturday, the 30th inst,’ at two o'clock P. M., without iurther notice. Roserrs.—In London, England, on the 13th of Decemoer last, CAROLINE D.. wife of Marsnall 0, Roberts, of the city of New York. Relatives and friends of the family are respect- fully mvited to attend the foneral, trom tne Unk | versity place church (Rev. Dr. Booth’s), corner of University piace and Yeuth street, on Saturday, 30: inst., &t two o’ciock P. M. RokuL.—Suddenly, after a short sickni on board of bis ship, EDVARD JACoB ROHL, Master of German bark Emiile Kahl, of Stralsund, Germany, aged 56 years, Funeral will take place to-day (Friday), at twa o'clock P. M., from 551 Court street, Brooxlyn, Carriages will be in attendance at bail-past ome o'clock at Hamilton ferry, Brooklyn side. Rosk.—On Weanesday evening, January 27, 1875, EDMOND Rosk, im the 46: year or his age. His remains will be taken to Hudson jor inten ment. Hudson papers please copy. SCHIMPER.—On Tuesday, 26th inet, GEORGE SCHIMPER, 10 the 36th year of his age. Funcral services wiil be held at his late rest- dence, No. 24 Vandam street, on Friday, 29th at one o’clock P. M. Reiatives and tends a vited to attend the services. SCHLICHTING.—Suddenly, on Jannary 25, ex Alderman EDWARD SCHLICHTING, aged 45 years. ‘the members ol Franklin Lodge No, 2 F. and A. M,, the Hariem Maennerciior and the relatives and friends are respectiully invited to attend the funeral, trom his late residence, No. 120 East 1234 street, at twelve o'clock noon, on Friday, 29th inst, ScHMIBDE: n Brooklyn, on tuesday, January 26, EppY SCHMIEDER, Only son ot L. KE. and Louise Schmieder, ayed 4 years and 7 montha, Kelatives and friends of the amily are respect- fully invited to attend the inverai, from the res dence of bis parents, No. 185 Buitic street, Brooke lyn, on Friday, nuary 29, at one o'clock. SeaRs.—On Wednesday, January 27, Mra, ANNA in the 68th year of her age. fo, 87 Classow on Saturday, at two o’cioc? ry The taneral will take place at avenue, Brookiyn, P.M. Sroppart.—At San Francisco, Cal., Jaunual 26, 1875, Davip SroppaRd, vorn at Fairnie Hill Linlithgowsnire, Scotlana, Uctober 5, 1832 VormMEY.—On January 27, 1875, at West Brighton, | Staten Isiand, CaTHewiNe TORMEY, aged 25 years, @ hative of the parish of Faugnistown, county Westmeath, Ireland, Funeral will arrive to-day, Friday, at Whitehall street ierry, at hali-past twelve P. M.; thence te Calvary Uf etery. TROTH.—On Wednesday, January 27, 1875, OLIVES TxorA, In the 80th year oF his age. The relatives and iriends, and those of nig | uncles, Tl. F. and Samuel Secor, are respectfutly invited 10 attena the funeral services, ou Thurs day evening, January 28, at half-past sev o'clock, at the residen of Mrs. Jane eat rr) 805 Kast Filth street. The remains will be take to Bast Chester sor interment on Friday morning, 9:05 train of the New Yorkand New Haves Railroad. WALSH.—At the residence of bis sister. 403 West | Forty-iourth street, Parnick WALSH, aged 32 years The tuneral wilt take place irom St. Josepns of West Wastingtoa plaice and January 30, 1875. Relatives and friends are in vited. VV E.DON.—At Charleston, §, C., on Wednesday, December 27, Major HeNky WeLDon, lormeriy ol this city. Wi.ky.—tn Brooklyn, on Taesday, 26th Inst. | Mrs. Suizaberit WILBY, relict of Alexander Wiley, aged 85 years and 3 months, ihe relatives and imends of the family are re spectiully invited fo attend the tuneral, from the residence of her daughter, Mrs. Sarah H. Colton, No. 141 State — Brooklyn, on Friday, 29tb, at | two o'clock P.