At trial, A's attorney called B's secretary D as a witness. D began to tell how B's accountant, C, had told he?

In order to induce A to become manager of his store, B offered A 2 percent of the net profits of the store. A later sued B because he thought B was cheating him. At trial, A's attorney called B's secretary D as a witness. D began to tell how B's accountant, C, had told her that she (C) was getting a bonus from B for altering the account book to prevent A from getting his share. Midway through the statement, B's attorney objected. What rule supports the objection, and what is the policy behind the rule? How could A's attorney get the conversation of B and C and the account book themselves into court? What if C refused to cooperate? Answer: B's attorney objected because the secretary was going beyond what she had seen and heard. She was telling the court about a conversation between B and C that she had not heard. This violates the hearsay rule. The policy behind the hearsay rule is that unreliable evidence should be excluded. Also, allowing only statements of which the witness has firsthand knowledge gives the opposing side an adequate chance to cross-examine the witness. A's attorney could still get the conversation between B and C into court by calling C as a witness. If she was unwilling to testify, she could be __________________________. Also the account books could be acquired via _________________.