The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-12-12


dered in this case will surprise no one. The
issue put to the jury could not well have been
decided otherwise. Between the hard swear
ing on both sides, on the part Of witnesses
whose position and aniecedents entitled them
to credit, there could be no verdict on the evil
dence. The jury, therefore, acted upon GER
tain well established principles of ethics to
guide them in this difficulty
But few will quarrel with their decision. In
cases of this kind it is rule Of law, as it is of
morals, that the plaintiff shall come into court
with clean hands. In other words, he must be
able to show that he has in no way connived
at the offence with which he charges his wife.
We do not impute that Mr.. Burch knowingly
did SO, but there are some facts in the evidence
which wear that appearance. The reputation
for gallantry of Mr.. Stuart was well known to
him. 1t was, in any view of the case, highly
imprudent for him to throw his young and at
tractive wife so frequently into his company.
But that imprudence became the more serious
when others felt it necessary to demonstrate
with him on the subject, and he disregarded their
warnings. If he were simple minded man,
inexperienced in the ways Of the world we
might not perhaps feel surprised at his
unbounded faith in Stuart. But he
does not belong to that class of persons
who are easily duped by appearances, or
who are apt to place much trust in others. Mr..
Burch is, in short, a successful money broker,
and in saying this we imply that he was as
fully capable Of protecting his domestic as he
did his pecuniary interests. OF course it is
possible that in looking keenly after the one
he neglected the other.
But this unaccountable negligence on the
part of so sharp man would probably not
have weighed much with the jury but for GER
tain ugly facts that transpired on the trial.
Without laying stress upon the effort made to
establish counter charge of criminality
against him, we would ask whether the convey
ance made of his property previous to these
proceedings was the act of a man who felt that
he was going into court with q strong case,
If he had faith in the confession which he OBJ
tanned from his wife, what was the necessity Of
this precautionary measured And then the
circumstances under which this conf. .on
was eSlOTteu. was IL HtCcScATy TOT MS
purpose that he should resort to the
brutal expedient Of threatening this already
Inundated and enfeebled woman with his
clenched fist, in order to wiring from her the ad-
missions which were necessary to make out his
case?
These facts, taken in conjunction with the
evidence brought forward by the defence, i'm
probable as it may be deemed by some in the
face of Mrs. Burch's confession, fully justify the
verdict rendered by the jury. Had that evil
dence been less positive, they would still have
been warranted in discrediting a case based
upon so much indifference to his own conjugal
interests. and such careful preparations for the
legal consequences of the defeat of his suit as
were exhibited on the part Of the plaintiff. 1t
is but right that when our laws afford such
facilities for the rupture of the marriage lie the
severest scrutiny should be instituted by our
courts into the motives and conduct Of those
who seek to avail themselves of them.