, 1860-11-27

subject.
cfass eTamined dy 1fr. Res7r;M-I dom;
ka''w that any advice WAS asked expressed
IN opinion that il WAS safer fur Mrs. Rurcl IL
~ undcF the care OF her mother: understood
Ill. Corning had been sent for, b:lt there was
stonl,t whether he would come; there is Il poa-
s!hil:ty thai ! migh. not have Eecn the 1,a,u.,
till Wednesday,; on Thursday, I think. Nr.
3urch handed INC All enT:lope containing :,
PAPER; h1nded it back to him and do nut
know the contents, only Is he told me; i,t.
said it Was something authorizing me- to c1D-
rloy an attorney 10 appear for her IN .ivorc,.
suit: said he had better Keep it; rccollc,'t
!tr: Bcckwith iltndsrg nc Il paper; about the
time first understood there vas to he de-
fence intcrfo=rt! q note W.: addressed to NE
'v Ar. Beciwi;!s. and I replied, and tl,at p.t-
ls:r w. handed to me by .Mr. Bcclwitl, right
alter. Within three days, tlinka Sunday i'll
teTrcstcd; FIRST learned Of this difficulty o:a
Tuesday, as came to my house, and MI. Burci,
cain" ttlcre and sc walked together to u-
t:l;ce and he commenced 10 tel! 1ne tue story:
I t:;hc- went to Mr.. Far. ms ot1ice, or met
him and ltc went with !at Durin. that tin,e
th;nl. first saw this .:apcr. Ii was then
signed bu: whether it Wiz atttstel or not do
Eot know.
TESTIMONY OF JE 0GE DICKEY.
U'Gh r. Dic.:y srora-~E.-aminn.ion by IL.
1uM As,"on.-i recellect the occurrence: spo-
-
shown IN his ctl;ce it Sss Tuesday lnornin.
aboat tell oG.ock; sa:s: :. paper; 1 do not
i;nuW whether il was tir,t day or the next day;
don't remember the time Vt day; l Eaw par.r
like ti!at read By Mrs. B'IrcI, 10 rs Aic:srs.
EarraIl, Skinner and l:,yse1f; / can't tell
whether read it. {rhe witness examined The
paIer.l Tie same E1cts are suited here Is In
lhat heard recsl: hai it in my hand AMI
io,kcl at il; don't remember Mr.: Farna,n.s;
,eis':55 there oaly once wien it was rcats Tue--
day saw afterwards al.,islCr pa,lcr fa1r,u,rt-
ilIs TO be 4 confession Of Mrs. Eurci. 1t was
not il, the sa,lv handwriting us the other.
whether it was the san,e or not can't tell
tivs:-E.:unstned By -ut. AcI~iMt--I first Eaw
this 1s:;'.r, in tEc haudw rtiny uf Nj. Bnrci.,
on Tuesday afternoon OF Wednesday; 1t was
a": Ilicsuay morning.
faaais E,1rh .sr.t'lesl 0aI EIa,ain:d 1y Nr
IHn d,Maa-I wrote 20 Miss SCald:n. t,u
Wednesday,, relating the occurrence; sIcakin"
ol lie confession also Oh FriCay night. IA
l-rs ;5c jlcre shown to the witness. THIS
wrot: on Wednesday, aud this on Friday:
think AaI conversation with Mrs Jitl..
:>alnncr o4 Thursday or Friday OF the wrei:
iirs. Eure went away don't think could
iEs'c *a:3 anylhiug approaching guilt on Mrs.
Et''rhs part: ito nut -cticiA!,er tulling her
tiEt !. lM:; never seen 4 wron!- look ur AZ
lion could not approve, or that ut tii.
ti.uc that Mrs. i3urch AID ller husband ,vt re
tN:AtACA tl4Ai tIE hE1E@ AEtt VI lEIl, lnN i
Thought Of going III, aatl breakinn III, or that
Ac lEd been tuo hard a,on her; sad th:,
Old rot believe her guilty till hcs confession
remember OF s1caain. about the time Of my
cs:mhsng her lsaiE; do not rctnclnbcr Of eay-
ing lllat she hadxlo lt:ea sue was Gnins away
till The .;:.y she left or HAT sl. lid NOT take
Ill iaer things tecaiise s::o thought lie was not
::ai.1:: to sv!d her a:Say. do .o1 remember
that l told Mrs. Ski1,er Ut any remarks or
confessions :,E,1c hy A.::. Birch to INT.
Uirttf examination FtA::Htd.-Tise day after
Mrs. t'urs'i: Lett, either Thursday or Friday,
saw Mrs. skinner sn the stairs it Mrs. l5usch's
house; did mol think alr.. Eurch guilty till
she confessed.
Ett*s@samt.it!it,u sxx%:uad.-!iayt la,1 con-
seTsalien with Miss AE:n High upon this Sub
jacl7 have tniu hrr ahont Mrs. Euscl's conits-
si.ll and nt Mrs. Gfrcl;';; remarks to nlc; have
not told her iht Mr.. E1rch lad abused Mrs.
BrcE, or t.at went Il, tile door and listened;
| lid nut do s.s.
-::..S -!::aty .Sir;*;:rg 7'rai;nl ~ H: |.m -tr-
:'ss:s-l destroyed Tie letter iru::. Mrs. Hnrch:
sr w:.':e usc lila: sh- hal destroyed mine.
and requested l:4e to destroy hers: She said
-!H had l'ever cnjoycsl Hny ones Wits III well
lis 'ain., and hoped -o1,ld CURE again; she
:tid -li:. had whlls:uc. temptations great as
1lr. St:a:: and Thought eEc wo:li,l be able to
10 The end Of l.tr lie. i received the letter un
Thanksgiving: day.
II. VAN AMMAN here offered in evidence the
r:rcrs s!;,hc,l of lis confessions, intimatiny
that Til. closed tue ca.e fur the complainant
Mr.. EEckHITl objected to their admission,
aud proposed to o'iar solnc proof Us Il lEssi,
for s.cl1 objection, and wunld tall Mr.. Corn
lny ou the siunl. l'.:;lrrued that whcnG:c.
conle.sinn. oral or rittcu, Is oifctcl III eri-
aaEca .'' ts::, il !.ir.. it r.s clt:n-
cd, and t'l:: II the Court is satisfied that thu
confession hid Eecn drawn out under circuu-
STANCES rendering i: i:,,l::lis-ab!e, it became.
tit" .sNty 0ft!sc Court lo ry7Iudcit. Tllr Q:ips-
tluI is 4 preliminary Ole addressed IT, the.
Coart, whether it shall 20 10 tie jury Tie
!'nnrt. ca1. c:ly determine this by hearing cy-
lence.
.tr: IsgowSINr-If confessions are not vol
i.E':'ry, il atalucsf by ;lllnrc!nc:t nf promises,
r rXtnrtcd by threats acting upon the fears.
!l.,'ir wtlts3c value :.s evidences i destroyed.
Tie question i merely whether III" question:
is for the Court IL decide, nr for the jury
Ms. Browning read from Roscne'*; Criminal
Evidence as 10 the Ialnc of Confessions. As
10 tlic question Of the time Wien the circnr-
>i'tccS might 3n shown, lie read from the
sanle authority. Whenever the Curt BECOME.
aware that o;s!t:> knrw morr Of lle mas,,,yr III
whiri these cnntt'+si"as arc obtained t::,
1:lnst already $wnTl, it leron1c> its duty T.,
possess itseI: Of Tie samc hc(Dre it all,ws the
confession IA 50 liz the jury. The VucstitEt Is
::.'t " Int cilyrt they will Lave upon the j17y
but whether tilry ean 20 The jury.
MI;, VAN ARMAN,-lhc r,llc i'll this class oe
cases j. lived :'y tile statute. No confession
shall BIZ taken as evidence. unless thu Court Or
Jury sfail he satisfied it WAS 1natlc III sincerity
anti without fra;1tl ar collusiuu. II the qurs-
tin Is tried l.: tic Cc.1t1, that l. is 10 be s:ti=-
lied; il by the jury, te. the jury is ~ TIC salts
fl,i. The wurt sincerity includes the calur:ca
law .icltlcrs, aud W. arc hound to excsat.e
these objections, anil wt have done so by the
eorroboratiyc tc-1iuloB; ot others, anu nf The
only two persons rrvsrnf WHEN thcv were
iyNed. Mr. Van Arlnan argued 1T length the
construction IF Tie statute. and claimed that
1T common laT the practice WAS not that sus-
:es1eL.
Mn. 1Io7SE-Confessio in civil anil trin.-
iEal casrs stand IN different footing, he gave
1T length The reason: Tor tic distinction, citing
authorities.
Nr: MILLER stntetl tAc question and argued
it at length.
M.. liz, kwrrn referred to The character Of
;!lr testimony already introduced, tli,t Fanny
Elrti! lad first communicated 10 Mr.. Rrrt!l
"l Monday forenoon: taat lic comes hume
ailtl .ues up s1ai:s to Mrs t.. Er 10 hat time
no confession Ut any kind Is made: she il
heaT.l 1a say i'll that soul!a again and again,
am nj; @u:lty, father Then liz comes DOWN
with 4 confession. aud writes to Mr.. CORNING.
That letter we shall produce: ,r.. shall show
That that confession WAS niaincd under influ-
s1,ces which iorhi.i lis icing used, shown.
1!.is III regard 10 the first. Tile presumption
i that the influence continued and applied to
other confessions made during tte time, am.
this legal PRESUMPTION i !nrlte uut by crc,lui-
stances. She wo* locked Vi. sc2E.e,l, eoerccsi
III l:cr huusc. Aill, while asserting her inlu-
trnr.', enNt,Escs The Court cannot pa-s thu
.ln,stien OF law over to the .J,irv. The same
ruiz. as to the exclusion ri confessions, ob-
!as1lS in cases for divorce, is in criminal eases
Brtort. tile statute a. Inn. ago as the cauuns Of
tisegory. 1l:e law was that confessions could not
l,e received urtil ii was first shown that they
were co1llsiycls Mllr. The object Of tue
statute was not to abolish the common law,
BIT: is a simple rc-cHac;mcnt Of 1t. not strip
l,ing the Judge Of his discretion. The words
Of tllc statute a.c that IN confession shall he
received unless it shall appear tn have been
made without is:lust. Nc.. II enable the con-
r!a:Ean! 10 o';ait Il divorce.
Mr. F.ESswoIrn cited authority to show
that t!lc question must be decided hy the
Court. Wc say that there is more IL BE- shown
about tie s:,:.Niis:. Of this confessinn-,o
shnw the 1nyetsry OF that iuluisitiou, when the
Witnesses were n1arshal!cl nr into that can
.llc-li.ltct1 room. They have not shown who
was there when thai was signed: when the
pen was dipped III iar ink ana traced the lines;
when Burci Il ool over and dictated when be
statul at her side; when ste copied what hr
Lad written. The subject is NOT exhausted,
VIZ say t!.:= ran he show:,. an.l IL they will not
aylil themselves or j: Ec will Introduce il.
lie referred 10 authorities hearing upon the
question.
Mr. BRowS1SG-Th presumption OF law is
that confessions are not voluntary, and That
presumption must he overturned before it can
b. used,if The question is doubtful the confes-
sion is to be rejected. The question is NOT
whether these shall 20 10 tho jury-.we might
urge That t.ey layc14ot 50 far cleared the skirts
ri these confessions is TO admit them that
they come to US in questionable shape and
not free from suspicion. The only question is