Very appropriate words

[RJNorton]

(11-28-2016 11:48 PM)John Fazio Wrote:  Recall the testimony of John T. Tibbetts at the trial of John Surratt in 1867.

I have brought up hearsay evidence before as often I do not understand why certain testimony is allowed. Here is an example of why I am confused. The mailman, John T. Tibbett, is on the stand being questioned during the 1867 John Surratt trial. Here is the key part of his testimony:

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


Q. Did you ever see the mother and son together?

A. Yes, sir, I have.

Q. Have you ever heard them conversing in the presence of each other in reference to Abraham Lincoln, late President of the United States? If so, state what yon have heard them say?

A. 1 have heard them conversing but very little together. Mr. John H. Surratt had but very little to say when I would be passing there, but I have heard Mrs. Surratt say...

Mr. Bradley: I would like to know upon what ground this evidence is

The Court. Do you propose to prove the conversation between the prisoner and Mrs. Surratt in reference to Abraham Lincoln?

The District Attorney. Yes, sir; the conversation in presence of the prisoner, expressing malice towards the President, and pointing directly towards his assassination.

Mr. Bradley. How long before the assassination?

Mr.Pierrepont. We do not care how long.

Mr. Bradley. You will hardly say a conspiracy was formed in 1863.

Mr. Pierrepont. We will show, before we are through, that the conspiracy was formed in 1863.

Mr. Bradley. I think the evidence is not competent, but we waive any objection to it.

Witness. I heard Mrs. Surratt say...

Mr. Merrick. In the presence of the prisoner at the bar?

Witness - Yes. I heard her say she would give any one $1,000 if they would kill Lincoln.


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Tibbett testifies that Mary Surratt said she would give $1000 to anyone who would kill Lincoln.

My question is: why was this testimony allowed?

Joseph Bradley, John Surratt's attorney, said to the court: "I think the evidence is not competent, but we waive any objection to it."

Why did he waive his right to object? Why did he not object and say "hearsay evidence is inadmissible?" Mrs. Surratt was dead, and he was referring to something she said years before the John Surratt trial. I do not understand why the judge allowed Tibbett's testimony.