CONFIDENTIAL COMMUNICATIONS.
Those statements with regard to any trans action made by one person to another during the continuance of some relation between them which calls for or warrants such com munications.
At law, certain classes of such communi cations are held not to be proper subjects of inquiry in courts of justice, and the per sons receiving them are excluded from dis closing them when called upon as witnesses, upon grounds of public policy.
Secrets of state and communications be tween the government and its officers are usually privileged; Gray v. Pentland, 2 S. & R. (Pa.) 23 ; Thompson v. R. Co., 22 N. J. Eq. 111; 5 H. & N. 538; Totten v. U. S., 92 U. S. 107, 23 L. Ed. 605. So also the con sultations of the judges, the testimony of arbitrators in certain cases, and the sources of information in criminal prosecutions; 1 Wharton, Ey. sec. 600 ; Welcome v. Batchel der, 23 Me. 85; 4 C. & P. 327; Woodbury v. Northy, 3 Greenl. (Me.) 85, 14 Am. Dec. 214; Worthington v. Scribner, 109 Mass. 487, 12 Am. Rep. 736; Stephen's Dig. Ey. art. 113.
Of this character are all communications made between husband and wife in all eases in which the interests of the other party are involved; Stein v: Bowman, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 223, 10 L. Ed. 129; Drew v. Tarbell, 117 Mass. 90 ; Castello v. Castello, 41 Ga. 613; Corse v. Patterson, 6 Har. & J. (Md.) 153; Warner v. Pub. Co., 132. N. Y. 181, 30 N. E. 393; French v. Wade, 35 Kan. 391, 11 Pac. 138; Higham v. Vanosdol, 101 Ind. 160. Nor does it make any difference which party is called upon as a witness ; Ry. & M. 352; or when the relation commenced; 3 C. & P. 558; or whether it has terminated; Stein v. Bow man, 13 Pet. (U. S.) 209, 10 L. Ed. 129; Barnes v. Camack, 1 Barb. (N. Y.) 392; 1 C. & P. 364; Robb's Appeal, 98 Pa. 501; Stanley v. Montgomery, 102 Ind. 102, 26 N. E. 213; Crose v. Rutledge, 81 Ill. 266; Lingo v. State, 29 Ga. 470. A third party who overheard such a may testify as to it ; Com. v. Griffin, 110 Mass. 181; Gan non v. People, 127 Ill. 518, 21 N. E. 525, 11 Am. St. Rep. 147. The wife may be exam ined as to a conversation with her husband in the presence of a third party; State v. Center, 35 Vt. 379 ; Lyon v. Prouty, 154 Mass. 488, 28 N. E. 908; Fay v. Guynon, 131 Mass. 31; Floyd v. Miller, 61 Ind. 224; Wes terman v. Westerman, 25 Ohio St. 500; but not if the third person failed to hear or paid uo attention to the conversation; Jacobs V. Hesler, 113 Mass. 160.
The confidential counsellor, solicitor, or at torney of any party cannot be compelled to disclose papers delivered or communications made to him, or letters written or entries made by him, in that capacity; 4 B. & Ad.
876; Britton v. Lorenz, 45 N. Y. 57; Orton v. McCord, 33 Wls. 205 ; Johnson v. Sullivan, 23 Mo. 474 ; Chirac v. Reinicker, 11 Wheat. (U. S.) 295, 6 L. Ed. 474; Sweet v. Owens, 109 Mo. 1, 18 S. W. 928; Swaim v. Humph reys, 42 Ill. App. 370; Andrews v. Simms, 33 Ark. 771; Hollenback v. Todd, 119 Ill. 543, 8 N. E. 829; Higbee v. Dresser, 103 Mass. 523; Vogel v. Gruaz, 110 U. S. 311, 4 Sup. Ct. 12, 28 L. Ed. 158; Snow v. Gould, 74 Me. 540, 43 Am. Rep. 604 ; 9 Exch. 298; nor will he be permitted to make such communica tions against the will of his client; 4 Term 756, 759; 12 J. B. Moo. 520; Bank of Utica v. Mersereau, 3 Barb. Ch. (N. Y.) 528, 49 Am. Dec. 189; Anon., 8 Mass. 370; nor even if the communication is made in the pres ence of a third person; Blount v. Kimpton, 155 Mass. 378, 29 N. E. 590, 31 Am. St. Rep. 554; nor will the client be compelled to dis close such communications; Bigler v. Reyher, 43 Ind. 112 ; Duttenhofer v. State, 34 Ohio St. 91, 32 Am. Rep. 362; Hemenway v. Smith, 28 Vt. 701; not even when the client takes the witness stand on his own behalf ; Bigler v. Reyher, 43 Ind. 112; Barker v. Kuhn, 38 Ia. 395; Duttenhofer v. State, 34 Ohio St. 91, p2 Am. Rep. 362; contra, Inhabitants of Woburn v. Renshaw, 101 Mass. 193, 3 Am. Rep. 333.
The privilege extends to all matters made the subject of professional intercourse, with out regard to the pendency of legal proceed ings; 5 C. & P. 592; Miller v. Weeks, 22 Pa. 89; Foster v. Hall, 12 Pick. (Mass.) 89, 22 Am. Dec. 400; Sargent ' v. Inhabitants of Hampden, 38 Me. 581; Wetherbee v. Ezekiel, 25 Vt. 47; Bacon v. Frisbie, SO N. Y. 394, 36 Am. Rep. 627; Jones v. State, 65 Miss. 179, 3 South. 379; Young v. State, 65 Ga. 525; but see Hemenway v. Smith, 28 Vt. 701; Thomp son v. Kilborne, 28 Vt. 750, 67 Am. Dec. 742 ; and to matters discovered by the counsellor, etc., in consequence of this relation; 5 Esp. 52.
Conversations between solicitor or counsel and a party, relating to the subject matter of a suit, are privileged ; Montgomery v. Perkins, 94 Fed. 23; but evidence of a con tract between an attorney and client for compensation, or the assignment of an in terest in the judgment, is not privileged; Strickland v. Mills, 74 S. C. 16, 54 S. E. 220,