Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®
Articles 1 - 3 of 3
Full-Text Articles in Evidence
Evidence-Privilege-Confidential Communications Between Husband And Wife, James I. Huston
Evidence-Privilege-Confidential Communications Between Husband And Wife, James I. Huston
Michigan Law Review
Husband sued for divorce alleging that wife drank excessively and humiliated him in public by her conduct, and that she continually made false and profane accusations designed to make his life unbearable. As proof of the latter charge, plaintiff was allowed to introduce in evidence a wire recording of conversations between plaintiff and defendant in their bedroom. Plaintiff's son by a previous marriage had, by prearrangement with plaintiff, installed in their bedroom a microphone connected to a wire-recorder in the son's adjoining bedroom, with which recordings were made of four separate conversations between plaintiff and defendant. The recordings substantiated plaintiff's …
Evidence-Privilege-Husband And Wife-Attorney And Client
Evidence-Privilege-Husband And Wife-Attorney And Client
Michigan Law Review
A husband and wife are involved in marital difficulties. Together they consult an attorney in an effort to compromise their dispute, or failing in that, to arrange a property settlement prior to separation or divorce. Such a joint consultation may be for any one of a variety of purposes. In a later action, for divorce or separate maintenance for example, the question arises whether either the attorney or one of the spouses can disclose words spoken by the other spouse in the consultation. For instance, can the attorney or the husband disclose the wife's admission of adultery?
Evidence - Privileged Communication
Evidence - Privileged Communication
Michigan Law Review
In a suit for divorce on the ground of adultery, a Luthern clergyman refused to testify concerning a disclosure made to him in his religious capacity by the defendant husband, on the ground that it was a privileged communication under the Minnesota statute. The district court adjudged him in contempt of court. Upon certiorari to the supreme court of Minnesota, held, the communication was privileged, and the order was reversed. In re Swenson (Minn. 1931) 237 N.W. 589.