Worcester daily spy. [volume] (Worcester [Mass.]) 1850-1888, 1855-11-17
PoIiee Court.


commonwealth -. JeoTJs BIaoN.
FRIDAY, Nov. Is.
for a4uifery. The complaint charged adultery
with one Elizabeth 7. N0ybusry. married won
an, between November IS, 1854. and Februsry
Ist, 1855
Rev Willard Fuller testified that he married
said Elizabeth 10 her present husband in 1873
Samuel Bart. of Sutton. testified that ssid
Elizabeth worked 81 his house IN Sutton. IN No
yember and December. 1854 defendant came
there ard was introduced as her cousin. Three
O. fonr days after witness found him in the morn
ing. On the bed with Eizaheth. Witness told
htn that oay Z n he didn't want any borders
The next morning and for eight or nine success.
i've mornings witnessed saw defendant uudressed
II bed with her. Witness told her several Zines
that she must leave his house immediately. She
replied ,isst she wouldn't leave unless be should
throw her ont Q: doors. At last ne put on his
hat and Overcast AID was startiug OF 10 see lie
seiectmen, when she promised TO leave, and did
leave
The counsel for the government here rested the
case, brl the Court put several inquiries % Mr..
Burt, the above-named witness, from which i ap-
pearea that tas witness made no complaint 4 any
magistrate against defendant nor did be cali IN
evidence TO detect defer daut IN bed with Eliza
beth The reason he gave was that he was in Ill.
health, unable 70 work, wanted trouble, fear
ed il might lead 70 a lawsuit for SANDER He
further stated that his little bov and girl twins
with Elizabeth; in fact, that his little girl slept
part of the time II the same room, because sue
had no other Bad that his boy slept with himself
that he had never told these facts except when
compelled to DO so in Court.
No evidence whatever was advanced by the de-
PENDANT.
The Court remarked that the Witness (Burt's)
story was improbable, Hhereupon counsel Tor gov
eminent called the first witness. Rev. Mr.. Full
Ter. to testify as to Burts reputation tor truth
Ill : - . I. !
msn with Burt for twenty years hld been some
what acquainted with him; had heard OF him &C.
casionaliy, living three, four, and five miles dis
tant; never heard anything against 6urt's repu-
tati0n.
Counsel for government offered himself as evil
dence to Prove Burt's reputation fur truth,
and stated that he knew him fifteen years
before ;-furihermo1e, had lived in the same
town with him had had occasion, with.
in few months, to make inquiries Of Butts
neighbors to his character for TRUTH that Burts
reputation was uniformly that of a reliable, truth
full man.
But the Court decided that, though there was
no motive for the witness, Surt. 10 periure him
self and his testimony was gnimpeached and
uneontradicttd, and was consistent with it.
self aud clear, direct, and conclusive,
if true; yet, as it was singular conducI for the
witness to allow such things in his house and not
make complaint Of II to magistrate, nor order
the defendant out OF his house in SO mans words.
nor prevent his little girl, seven years old, from
sleeping IN the same apartment where he had
several times found defendant in bed with Eliza
beth. Therefore, the witness, Notwithstanding his
asons for his conduct, was not to be believed
on Data
Gu summing up the evidence the Court re-
marked that the evidence did not convince the
Court beyond q reasonable aoa5t. Bus the c0un-
sci for government suggested that this was un-
necessary, 1t being sufficient to show probable
caase and after consideration the c urt decided
that it was sufficient to prose that the defendant
! was probably guilty But, said the Court sin
preliminary investigation. like this, the man
fact must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt,
and theu il must be proved that defendant prob
ably committed that fact As IN llreeHy,' sail
tue Court. ''the fact that larceny has been com
nltted, must be established beyond reasonable
doubt, and then it is sufficient to show that the
defendant IS probably guilty Of said larceny"
So il would appear, that in this case, the main
fact, that an adultery has been committed should
first be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and
then that the defendant was probably guilty Of the
preparation Of said adultery.
Defendant discharged.