OCR Text |
Show .. i Telephone Conversations as Evidence. , The admission as evidence of the conversation con-versation by telephone between Fish and Ward was objected to by defense in the Ward trial, but the objection was properly, prop-erly, as we think, overuled by Judge Barrett. Testimony of this kind is as yet novel, but doubtless it is destined to become be-come as common in court as evidence of the ordinary kind. The telephone has, to a large extent, done away with face to face conversations in business matters and also communications by letter. It must often become necessary or important import-ant to show what , is communicated through the telephone, and there is no reason why such communications should not be proved in either civil or criminal trials. In a recent case the Supreme Court of Kentucky held that a contract between two persons might be made by a telephonic communication, and that it was perfectly proper to prove in court what the parties said to each other through the telephone. "It is true," the Court remarked, "that in communicating by telephone the parties par-ties cannot see each other. But the same is equally true of the blind. By telephonic tele-phonic means person's are as much together to-gether for all purposes of conversation and actors in what may be occurring as if they were immediately present with each other." |