, 1860-11-19

|
! ton against tho repeated rcnuustrauccs Of
his wilc's brother:
! If we show ,thIs VIC have gone far toward
| showing plain, preconceircd plan to excite
| and arouse thtec- anspicious against his wife.
We shall then show that he was ut this time
Ing constant familiar liberties with lcr five
| show this, ticn we show motive for his plan.
| A difficulty arises; and dcculins everything In
readiness, then it.ssns he Obtained this confcs-
sion from his wifi, by, in lis own language,
1.-THE most difficult Of I'LL processes; by cross
! examinations; hyan aiIrctatIou gilmore knowl-
| edge than he possessed; and BY such other
mental aud moral Influences Us be was enabled,
u:dcr God, to bring to bear," Then it was, to
use his own language, that he was "le,l hy
! light from, heaven; that God worked in ana
through him in azsivins 1T this wonderful re-
S'7s " otrsr this testimony for the purpose Of
! showing that h:stpheetions Lad become alicn-
| ated and cstraugca from his wife and that hc
had become fopd OF another. Then he went
to work to bring a:,ovt those confessions
under The mrntathnd moral influences whcih,
| undcr God, he Was capable OF usip:,, In The
sAqne Of eiencheA j!>t N her J,es.
| Ec elaim to show th3t having TINS intro
duccd Stuart 20 bis family, aul led his wife
to believe that hew1s Ais bosom friend, that
he sets down and writes . 1ciie. stating. "Oh,
| hundreds Of times, have warned Mary. with
| LII Ulf eyes, ~ Have NtsskGAE4 ~
| dowith that yilcst of wrctchcs, David Start"
VIC el.taa that being alicnatcd ffoln bis wife,
! he sought i eo1lfes&gn, knowing it 10 be false,
that he might 1c sash4ed to crafty the love
| taken from his wi45dpd tr7nst tcsred to another.
These aud other ressons rendcs itrrorcr that
80 far as regards the materiality Of this deposi
tion, it must bc:takcn In connection with
other testimony, d entering into and forming
| link in chain of circumstances
| Ue alleges that up 10 t'.e time Of this eEcnt
he was "loyins his wife with ardent affection.
sucl, as Tnan ncyeE had before"
outside 0i lis hoasc with this yoang lady; and
II VIC do 50, it viii show the motives prompt
| inr this man il writing down confession lor
1 her to sign Which liz knew to bc false
Mn. BEosS1Sat:- charge is that Of adul-
| tery In all their dSpozitions there is no
this charge 1t y proved, il at all, By circDm.
stances Of conduct aud department traced
| through period of two OF three years.
The on1j thingtha could TIC said is tt7s they
| prove, perhaps, itldiscrctio1as. The attempt Is
to prove the charge hy circumstances. no%
that thcy fall SO Gar thort OF this that they not
raise auy presumption uf Ike possibility Of the
! truth Of the ehatyc. Now in what wa; is the
defendant to nett this: Suppose the answer
to be simple ltr:al, cnUlV1cssed into dozen
| lines. UnIcr suei. answer, tile defendant may
I
presumption c1idca:orcd to 6e raised ty the
circumstances adduced By the complainant
The theory Of t31a defence, suppose TO be,
that the complainant l::l become di$loyal i'll
his affections tu: Lis wife, and loved another,
That he the1efutr set himself to work to har-
rass his wife by cbnstant gMbar1atkmcnts and
Rnnoyaaccs, hoping tl.t a separation might be
brought aboute,eBy showing this love Tor ano.
ther We show ttht hc had q 1netiyc, the soul
an!lnutiug all tho circumstances Which. Ac las
5rtfpsly woven around l"F. What set him to
work: Wl,nt put on foot the Vaccinations
meeting her atCTcry ete]t? We show 1t BY
showing this lore for anolhcs.
The defendant says The truth is that whilst
she was tender, Ntfec1iu1ate, devoted and faith
ful, he became nlicnated an1 gave to another
that lore which should have been her Own
alone. 1t Is for the jury to Say what will bc
the presumption arising from tho testimony
she NAV otIcr. tThe deposition under consid-
Grafton proves s5an unwnrrantablc intimacy be-
tween him and tho young lady, 1t eets l6rtfl
an act of the ETosseet inleccncy. IN express
terms, in his OWN house, in The very air
brcathed BY his wife and children.
Cannot Ste show this F.? Iu5t she stand
dumb before her accu=er? She docs not pre-,
tend to excuse tho circumstances alleged
AGAINST her, bnt wishes 10 oyertrrp the pre-
| sumption that may nrisc thcrufronl. tlcrc is
no direct evidence Of anything aprroachin:! in
the rcmotcst degree my act OF crilniualstJ,
She Shows why a'l t!is thing. was set upor
foot; why the doruestice oE the house We're SCI
| By this man as 6pies uion her. We shall show
that even before this time es set spies il his
own hG2se. upon the actions u his wi*c, to
dog her heels a11a report to hm-
This is not recrininatioc. From an eager
ness to brinE1his c,,se fu 4. liz earliest mo
lncnt: We preferred to abandon that put Of ont
defence, and I'd Icly upon othcr matter to vim
dicato the wro7arx- du1,e tn tl1is injured wo.
man. Cannot she trovc Conspiracy
against her, not for the l,t:Epose oE iuaA,
ing out :. charge OF adultery against him, but
to prove t1te }alsity Of his changes; TO meet
and repcl and negative any presuaptions that
might arise from the circumstances shown By
them. She is not compelled to follow In the
truck they may have marked out for hes. II
they prove circumstance, sllc Is not obliged
to show that circumstance did not exist, but
cau SHOW the other circumstances connected
! with it, knowing that tile wholc circumstances
taken together will mise Il different presuMp'
tion from the unc they wish
think it will turn ont tl'at up to within q
day or two Of the rupture between these un
happy people, that tho breath Of scandal had
never whispered suspicion III regard to her
Her character was as pure and fair as that o.
WOMAN can bc- Her husband, who should
have been her stay and her support, himself
gave this matter to the winds Of heaven. w
cau show why he did this. Ne will show thai
instead Of being the criminal anu loathsomt
tim If Q most foul conspiracy.
Mr.. VAN AE,IAS.-1f understand the case
he bases the adn.lssiblity Of this evidence up
OIL tho pcculiaritIcs Of this case.
MR- BEowSlSG.-1hc counsel mistakes ME
do not claim this is different from any othc,
suit for divorce upon this ground.
Nix. FAS.AKMAS.-I need not then show thai
this is hut common case Of suit for atiultry
but will assume that tho counsel will do 4:
largely as the p7tmf'e in the showing Of cir
cuihstanccs and Ut espionage, &c. The gen
eral rule is that evidence must be applicable
here Is whether the defendant be guilty 0
!; adultry. 1t is not how she may have been let
! to be SO.
The motives leading 10 tls prosecution
! whether one or Other, alaye nnth:u" 10 do will
the Issue. Neither has the deposition bcior,
US, containing the testimony Of wandering
French woman, coming to compluinauts lousi
} to seek aims, which might bc struck out OF
/ account Of the Infamous character If the VT
neas The fact set cut therein Is that the Wit
, ness says that wandering through the bors'
| Of Mr. Birch and looking through, half opc1
door, she saw the complainant taking indecen
J liberties with young lady. Htrue, what he
this got to do with the issue: Such cvidcnc
; would defeat tho complainant before the jury
. ! because it would prove adultery. But that
not set IN In the answer. But il one fact tai
| thus be proven. cannot another, and So canno
: |
} text, recriminatosy .nattcr, defeating tic rul
) and very object of plcadin.9
l afR- BROWSING. 1t would be competent TO-
us under simple denial to prove adu1ter.
} with this, or any other woman, whtn that flc
is connected with chain ct circumstance
which will ovcrtu1n the truth Of the plaintiff
} ! case.
Mr. VAN AnMXS. The whole Vi it Is tia
they claim the ccmplainant's affections had bt
. ! come atic1ated, and that he wanted to get ri
| OF this wife to get another. Suppose This u
true, 1t don't excuse adultery On her part.
wont say now how strong Cur proof ma
be; but tho Court cannot assume that On
t t proof will be circEmstAntial. It makes Go Iii
= ference what VIC may oiEc1 E;e mast prov
= the charge. live prove it, low does the fac
r that Mr. Burch, in his own aou*e or elsewhere
! committed an act Of fndccency with ant he
{ woman affect the case Ender tic issue? II Ia
! would It hayc to do with the proof Ola cons j
J 1acy: "ou!d this act prove it, oE be adn.is:
c bic to proScitt If it be so, then Adultery wcu1
:, be stronger proof than I'll act osindecenc.. Ca
q any distinction be drawn between tkc1n?
he can prove Al act Of indcccncy, leading t
e adultery, can he not prove the adultery. An
t can adultery bc proved unless expressly set u
c in tho answer
: On the ground Of the execution Of the con
|. mission being irregular, the deposition caanc
t be used The commissioner had no power I
l. administer the oath but to the witness. The
l. arc not olllccrs Of the coGFt. only 4uoat3 no
c The Interpreter could not be indicted for pc
+ jury If hc fa1silied the testimony
BI THE CoCRr. In regard to the applicatio
|" for . dcdtrn:ls to take the testimony Of Hon.
+ i. Douglas, understand It is to be on Il
intcEro.atories already tiled. I am dIauost
= to allow it to 1ssuc, the complainant to lie :
t lowed to filc cross interrogatorics, tho tcs,
> mony to be subject to sucl. exceptions as m:
IS be taken when the dispositions NAV arrive.
/ I entertain a. IN fh1 of