The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-07-10


tho infel elence that reasonable man would draw
from such state OF things, that crime Of this
ture bed been committed, before giving verdict o
divorce. There is one other matter to which wOu'i
Call your attention there u doubt in shs testimony
as to the number and location Of this house, IL 4
not absolutely necessary that it should have beer
No. l18 Mercer street.-the mistake In tho number
s not al unreasonable error at that time Of night
has not stated where 1t was-why, know not, and
why he was not asked cannot tell Nor was NJ Ha-
gan able to give the number, but he said II within
dooror two OF Spring stre~t There Is allegation ol
30 for this place b concerned. The next place in
which On offence is alleged to have taken place is
at the ccrner Of Grand and Mercer streets. There
is no evidence in this showing any separation ol
and At that place. The only evidence thsrs Is that
would lead yOu to the conclusion that there might
have been. IL his own admission testified to by
ore OF the Witnesses that be had been thore at that
but this admission is not sufficient. How far you
may think the ether facts In the case will justify
you In rendering verdict for divorce is for You 70
decide. You are a. c0nversaDt With them a. am,
and repetition In therefore unnecessary. Unless
you are sati,ed from the evidence that the act Of
adultery was committed on the corner of Grand aud
M rcer streets you will have to discard that alIega
g. ion. This brings US down to the part In which
tht de ence comes In. And the defence il, that
hr NJ. Walker committed these Offences, Mrs.
Walker visited him In New York, having the
kr owiedge Of them communicated to her !; and,
after having conversed with him upon the subject
she rmsined with him, and therefore forgave the
offences that had been previously committed. There
is no doubt as to the law upon the subject. which
says that . wife, having knowledge Of the adul.
tery Of her husband lives with him, she thereby for
gives the offence, and is prohibited from obtaining
q divorce, with this qualification, that If subse-
quent offence OF the same character is committed
she retains her right. All the evidence In this mat
ter relates oqly to one point-her knowledge OF his
v1~n - U-s
husband IN the mt nth Of July 1880 for several days.
and the only question is whether she at that time
had knowledge that he was guilty of the offence
The evidence In regard to this rests upon the test
and her at Walkers house, and the conversation be-
tween Mrs. Walker and Hull in the carriage going
to the railroad, show that she had charged
Walker with adultery and that he had denied 1t.
month q july in the Jail, va. the happie1s Of her
life, and whatever might have been his offences she
had forgiven them. The difficulty In regard to this
rests upon the credibiity Of Mr.. Hull. You have
Of bis story-ths opinion Of others With regard to
his character, and the corroborative evidence Of
others In relation to the facts to which he testi6es
It Is hard duty for the jury to discharge, brit you
ment. There have been called here ten or twelve
witnesses in regard to the character Of Mr.. Hull all
Of whom testify that be was unwerhy Of credit, and
that they would not believe him under oath. With
u
sums for which he was indebted were very small in
amount 20 that 30 Far IS his Indebtedness is con.
cerned there was not suncent to warrant any one In
the belief that they would swear his character away
70 speak Of his general character but who speak Of
the knowledge they have had Of him in the commu
nifty where be has lived, have also stated that they
would not believe him under oath. They all, with
for any one; and no evidence has been produced on
the other side to sustain him. He has been resi-
dent Of this State two years. and has done business
in the lower part OF Broadway. These are the cir.
fore you. If you don't believe his testimony, then
there isAo proof that Mrs. Walker knew Of her hus-
bands infdelity at the time he speaks Of. Il may
be said that Mr.. Hull has been sustained by other
in Q matter material 10 tho fact alleged. The emily
fact is that Of the knowledge of Mrs. Walker Of her
husbands tnddelity, and upon that there Ii EVIL
dence whatever: II you reject his evidence Of the
previous adultery has been committed, there wsuld
be sufficient to entitle tho plaintiff to recover. This
brings us down TO the offences committed In July,
when Mn. Williams visited the defendant in the jail
b. Mr. Young, ct the request Of Bobo; according to
Young, she was left alone With the defendant In his
CELL the turr key and himself both being required to
retire. Young then heard the door latched, and he
liams came out. He did not know then that Mrs.
Williams was woman Of improper character; but
subsequently lie ascertained her to be devoid Of
chastity. Some remarks made with reference to
Young BY the counsel for the defence, it p neces
sary for me to say, not warranted by the testi.
mony. He is q member Of the bar, and a. far a. It
appears In evidence, there is nothing against him
except the fact Of his going to the prison with this
female. He was there doing BUSH ess for the de-
feDdant, and we have no right to infer any wrong
on his part. Then again there is the testimony OF
Rue and Sturls, showing that Mrs. Williams and
other women were left alone with the defendant in
his cell. This testimony has been contradicted but
It has been cor tradicted by the women themselves.
who say that they were never in Q room alone with
Walker, and that no improper Familiarity ever
passed between him and them. should say that
the evidence Of . participstor In an offence Is
not entitled to the same credit as that Of an
uninterested witness. These are questions for
your confederation; and before you rem
der your verdict, you must be satisfied
whether at any Of those times the defendant was
guilty Of the adultery with which he is charged n
you believe him to be guilty, then the Question
arises whether tho offeoces committed by him out
Of Jail were forgiven by his wife5 II they for
given, were any offences committed Afterwards Z
This brings me to the second part Of the defence,
cause II is by the defendant here to cast
back upon his wife the charges brought against him
self. 1t becomes you to examine this part Of the
case as closely as any other. There are two cases
in which It Ia aleg d that adulterfes have boen
committed by the plaintih-onew with Senator Evans,
and another with DIR. HeartweIl. The alleged
adultery with Evans Is said to have been committed
on board steamboat running from Bath to Boston.
This altogether rests on the testimony OF Pierce.
He says that Senator Evans and Mrs. Walker came
together on board the Charter Oak, from Bath to
Boston; that they were together after the boat
started; that between ten and eleven at night he
saw them retire into state and shut the door;
and that, although he did not remain opposite the
door, yet he could observe It from where he stood,
and neither Of che parties afterwards came out.
Pierce states that he saw them again In the morn
ing about daylight, on the wharf in Boston.
where they got into carriage, and " &
on together. Here then follow two pieces Of IN
Trajectory testimony. In the frt place witnesses
are brought forward to imPeach Pierce's verscity,
nesses who have given him q good character. The
witnesses who have been called TO testify avorably
a. 10 his character have known him only in New
York, while those who have impeached his vcrscity
knew him only In Boston before he came here. One
witness In his favor, II will be remembered, hsd
heard II said that he was not Q credible man. Il