New-York daily tribune., 1856-03-28


daytime The S!Ri no, essbhsd soa ot Dr. Cox meet,
No a,fvsriei zee, dres.ci 10 1asrnias Lille Wise saw
Boone there Freemsn s Pslas her n 1884 lsss.
.y y'' s SGse % boz ';SsS ss hurry as
G,s s. 1s. va: "a oa. ' Ss ss s Sg ~. Pa
not that 'he for her TO dol IL a. old H
TIE sGs , .sse rom sS sS5 .Sos
T1on days her reson zig S To- r'seCns ..s NAE ,:i@
from hrs Van wyek ownns Pew that from ~ to !si she
hired ting Ii her pew and during ths time 'se eny 'a~
cpy Of The Rev Lot Jopes Who showed that instead Of her
benE eoumuHesni OF Calvary Ch.rch io' ter e. sne vas
aid word shout ID. prefix Of Ellen her name since .he
years dark ps hans. ovsr her history lie Say, word
.bon, the te.imory Of Mrs. Maxwell upon Der manner
worj 80 ,So,: tse te.timony Of Mrcornci who ,ays
that rsu was sent down ei lin that he the ply
though he wa, bis own brother Not wOri % said about
Mrs Meker, who inpeaehed the evidence Of Mrs Pratt.
door invitation that he could IN and remain With
her On AZ coumgnO. suIds They were pat on here to
husbands BED the Lords Day Add she selvs the
Mn Hawks and Mrs Graf that she could cover her osec.
IL vstns the shbohOd Boone saw her is Prsts also
MrsGrafs Chaisss have been Dsde against the ,n
TN lie Goes no prosecute divorce to marry sgs He has
Necessary for his happiness that the ro nov enstus By
sw should orever ees'e simple separation leaves "a The
having wife living with her mpsrs his fness
leaves bin liable .eatda Because be desires rid
b-csuse the deentan,
her threats as,n't his daughter This plaintiff may die AM
hands Of h defendant her worst enemy; eeeause he woad
ssrd himself from she SANDERS Of This woman because the
counsel s,ked why plaintiff did not to Iowa noi. aud
on. Gentlemen. there many to that Has il
this that leave he State and 20 like yas
.er Of oas Who .aS r s On. cause alone sh. ns be
pg from his wife snd that esu:e .dulter have
guilty Of adultery since her marriage with this rsn
e tncws sTi s I Su Se ln to hs "a
which 10 before hssequsntance With this unhappy woman
At the conclusion of Mr.. Schnfer'. remarks, the
Court took brief recess, after which Judge Oakley
proceeded to give lis
CHARGE 10 TIE JURY.
TIE Court said
GrNrLrMrs Ny duty connected with this case Is to state
you the besns il before i is given for dasl
wolves but e oflsw Il is matter Of fact I'D
heie exclusively bsorgns TO The sy All the cogrtcsn do
which the parties have framed with such remarks upon
the nature Of e'isIce senersy as gill enable you % judge
ferstanlgy of the effect OF the testimony than
otherwise ght oO Tls action or whseyer you may
sLcO'e a to eel: t. Soasht By hs p.psa s,. io the pSI M
Nfe. In order 30 that 4 Necessary he should
he ucceeds in doing Deces,ary that certain other
thin should proven enabs the court order
Usy Deces,sy that cersi sues framed by order Of the
couI boud he 70 the jury for hem to answer These
sues READ H. the OPeIng OF the case TO you and will
them again show their general and character
Is
feLdani alleged About that there question Both
psre. the fact af the took place The second
had oarnA coniseon u alleged IA she ccar,sn
whether Le committed adultery generally speatins but the
her TheL follows tha issue. which whether I've years
bsvs elapsed since the discovery Of these adutehes
And fur her, whether the plaintiff has voluntarily cnhsh<
with the defendant aer be Knew the fact Of the sdus. fr
if does this he valves the lesl consequences q: rio
saul,ery The T-ein,s whether such sdupery
wss d by the defendant with the a. tho
10
fesiy be the uegsye because five have
cesy Tot esp defendants msrrla plaintiff snd
there no eydei all that the plaintiff has coiabsd
the defendant tkeii separation, which December
1885, ard there no evidence going to show that tho snnn
in Ills conn I'd at the alleged Conduct OF his wife All
tLtfe '.ns seremen present 90 difculies The nFsse
teirs admitted the wlo CONTROVERSY settles down uIDn me
coAd .ue which s whether the adultery committed
CHARGED in the complaint Now the adultery charged
il the conTant, chetsec in two forms In tue nrst
Isce foh he hue ia this upon Information aud
dycce whether husband or WIFE, has any Fsso1ai
o the ot uon vi ch he she may proceed lie rs informed
belief uron ino,,socn beot The complaints forth
specify sIDes, ,ms and places The first person with who n
defended l. alleged 70 nave comGtt.d ainery "a M Oh
other charge vhch Diver Potter ad Shaw the parties
respectively n'ycd All these aen are nshed az The person.
with whom his adultery ives comgiitied No" suilcient
T. ray there is Kind Of eyideh;s in support OF any
IN COM econ with her in the evidence in any po,.,.
bic way showing any tesoIs io even sus'
ere thrown OF the question. Then the sue which
rise to o dbeuty in this esie Alter specifying the "
forth tink did, rent places in which the ofenss I, al
dssd siy. been u9g law permits es psa
with hom committed bot 1t cauuot set forth without
able certainty plaza aai
c rsuc. coi recled with i,; end fer s
tc. informed and believes In any isct OF adultery and
br c'mpisin founded ttat information OF
that Il particular place
circumstance. That one reason Another reason b
that common justice to parties requires that they should
be called to answer ger era charge as Il
trial and explain every uasaction OF bis or her life,
recsls With reson who has not been pointed out
is, .syeS dserert Pisces in vhh t defensot /.
committed adultery Ia the fr.t plsce It charged
eDd Houston secondly st house in Wooster
kert b. Mary GALLAGHER eiybg number to the house
Nc e5 s,reos 6hly at No SO West Thirty sixth
ar,ie. before their separation sIhy the house No. es
ty between Greene and Mercer s,Teet and ssventh
az No 81 MsIk. pscthe residence Of ths dlrn5
the years 1853 srd 1875 There is deal of evidence
as house No 80 Wooster street; but turns out in tho
examination that Nc ss Wooster street lot mentioned in hs
eouTani ALL Ard yet gete have both sides
Of ihe case the adultery charged had taken place
attention houlS lave excluded all tsst kind evidence
Now eemen this b the character Of these issues you are
thee oe, places named h what Is called ia he law ef UNI
but tbey SIMPLY claim to hrr thsse
i. that from the i.ct Of defendant visiting these
tg he o that 1e wss 5srs ' s
men legitimate kHt OF proof undoubtedly; because Ia
cael OF this kid b. sepeey any direct evidence
Of the feet a1d the jury rely upon s.rcusantiL
oGeree IL important perhaps for to understand What
the rales law well aid good seDse, are e.
10 tie CEect AL Operation OF this Character OF
evidence IL tie fist place IL presumed
10 be uCceLt until guilt be established The la~ o the sste
swe the sw of Christian Charity alw9Js tells US 70 Do
that SO our duty asceain with cert1y what ci'eurn
proved and then ak ourselves this question: Can
these b. accounted for suppositon Of the
innocence Party II they be- then O course ercum
sa a1 II they cannot be- then the duty Of the
Jury 70 uTon these circumstances, AID 70 drss from
them those which 81. may with safety draw
f them The duty Of the Jury n this 70 begin By
u rirg until certain facts proved
tendoz susficon Of guilt The Jury Inquire On the