Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1863-07-17

W.. TrOuDp.
entertainment consisted of graceful dancing,
amusing pantomime, good singing and fine
performance on the tight rope. Another enter
talnment will be given this evening, all the
members OF the troupe appearing.
CANTERBURY HALL.-Manager Sim has
never hau a better company than that now
performing at his popular resort The bill
nightly offered is rich and varied and full of
fun, and ever has the effect TO make one laugh
heartily. The songs of Eva Brent, replete with
rich melody, and the illustrations OF the effects
OF laughing gas are not the least among the
attractions here. matinee Tomorrow after
noon
THE CASE OF WILEY VS. RRoWS-C jrcu,t
court, chez Justice Cdrtter.-Iesterday, in the
case OF Mrs. Emily f. Wiley VS.. Marshall
Brown, MIR. Brent, one of the counsel for the
petitioner. closed his argument and the counseI
be granted
The counsel for the petitioner, in closing the
case to the jury, having maintained that the
entry In pencil in the New Testament, made by
T. r. Brown, the attesta'ion by said Brown to
the certificate of ID. Condict and the postscript
to the letter written in lSiI, and the interyiew
with Cartiitch, are evidence from which the
Jury may infer his acknowledgement of the said
Emily as his child to legitimate her under the
statute, the counsel for the defendant prays the
court to instruct the jury that inasmuch as all
these incidents occurred before the marriage of
the parties they are not evidence of any &c.
acknowledgement under the statute
And further, the said counsel in their closing
argument having urged to the jury that the
counsel fer the defendants have given no evil
denee 10 show where Elizabeth Brown was
nine months before the birth of Emily Wiley
or as TO her having had intercourse with other
about that time, the counsel for the defen-
dant prays the court TO instruct the Jury to the
effect following: That the petitioner having in
her evidence in chief confined the period of
the sexual intercourse between the said L p
and Elizabeth Brown, and thereby the periog of
conception, TO period embraced within two or
three months, commencing fourteen months
before the birth of said child until long after
the SAID conception: and the court having ruled
cut the evidence offered by the defendant to
show the lewd life of said Elizabeth prior to
that time, except at about the time of the alleged
conception, the burden was now thrown upon
the defendant to prove where the said Eliza
beth was, or how she was visited or employed
after the said imputed period of conception.
And further, the counsel for the petitioner
having further maintained to the Jury, as a
principle OF law, that where the witnesses gave
variant statements as to particular facts, they
thereby contradict each other, to impair the
credit due 10 the witnesses respectively the
counsel for the defense now prays the Court to
instruct the jury as to the rule of evidence in
that particular, and what the effect is of differ
enre between the several witnesses cuncurring
IA the main facts but differing in the details
Chief Justice Cartier, IN charging the jury,
said:
One important and the leading issue in this
case has been to ascertain the paternity of Emily
Wiley. The Court has opened the broadest
laiitue TO proof, with view to the thorough
investigation OF that subject, and has deter
mined, among other things, that this Testament
this letter, and the signature of Brown to the
CertlnCatt, were competent items of evidence.
They are competent as far as they have any
agency 10 show who begot Emily Wiley. They
are not competent, under the statutes of Mary
land, in giving Emily Wiley the legitimacy
which posterior marriage gi yes to a legitimate
child. Ihe Court does not notice particularly
the argument in this behslf but if this intend
ment was given to those items OF proof, it was
wrong.
Mr.. Brent.-I never so contended may it
please your Honor.
The Court.-No, do not know that you did
will
reject these three items with reference to the
acknowledgment OF Emily after the marriage
the acknow Iedgment made necessary by the
statute of Maryland to legitimate.
The second proposition relates TO a SUPPOSE
tious case-not exactly that either for il is
case that has been made in the testimony al
though the controversy and the estimony are
addressed TO your responsibility and not to
mine The Court will, therefore, charge you
that if you find from the testimony of Mrs
Brown that she made the acquaintance of Til
doIson Brown, and Conceived of him 4 child
within the first three months following the
fourteen months previous 10 the birth of that
child, the burden of explanation, the burden of
proof, the responsibility OF enlightenng you in
reference 10 the place and Time where her child
was begot rests upon the plaintiff and not upon
the defendant. The reason of this presumption
lies here: that the first three months pre-. exist
tng the birth of q child makes it impossible,
under the well own ply Biological laws, that
the child could be the offspring of the party
who cohabited within that period And the
explanation that may have succeeded it, as far
as there Is any responsibility about it in the
case, deyolves upon the party that wishes to
establish The conception. This is all matter of
fact for YOU, gentlemen; this presumption,
however, is a presumption created by the law
There is no doubt of il. Where party makes
proof of a fact outside of what they have got to
prove, the other party cannot be called upon to
reply TO it, because it does not raise case, and
if they would explain il, or have it explained,
the responsibility depolyes upon the party for
whose benefit the explanation should be made
That is the simple explanation of it. But in
this the Court does not attempt any opinion
I.nrt I'M taafc 4 d,anc fr,rnr
The Constitution makes you the triers of the
TACT, and responsible under your oath in the
judgme Mt Of the facts. 1t is thelaw with which
The Court has TO deal.
The idea of The third charge, as the Court
understands IL, is this: In estimating the value
OF testimony, it is laid down as principle of
the law OF evidence that q departure in detail
time and crcumstance-whicha are subordinate
10 the main subject OF testimony-is not a mat
Ter of Impeachment to the witness. On the
other hand, where there are many witnesses
involved in the single case, the law pronounces
this divergence OF detailed memorandum in
reference TO incidental facts as corroboratng
circumstances of honesty on the part of wit
Iesses. On the other hand, contradictions as
TO the main body OF the proof to which wit
nesses are called, and not the incidents, are
estimated as OF a different character. They
have there 10 be reconciled, or you have to
Oyerrule one version and adopt the other.
The counsel for the petitioner asked the fol-
lowing additional instructions, which were
granted:
|. Acknowledgements prior to the interrnar-
mage testlIed are competent PROOF on the ISIS 6
OF paternity, but are not TO be considered ac-
acknowledgements under the statute of Mary
land, which must be made subsea uentIy to the
marriage,
,. 1t is for the jury, upon the whole evidence,
10 ascertain whether Emily Wiley was con-
-ceiyed in Washington from intercourse
with I. Brown, or in Baltimore, or elsewhere,
from ali intercourse with some other man;
ard IL is for the jury TO find the meaning and
Interpretation of the testimony of the witness
l.. Brown, as 10 the time and place OF her con.
ceptlon.
CRIMINAL COURT, Judge Fishcr.-Wednesday
J. C. Mcdonald was tried for committing u
rape uren Mrs Feige, but the jury were
unable 10 agree upon verdict.
Yesterday morning, Mary Taylor, indicted
for keeping a dsorderly house, submitted her
case, and was fined Sa3 and costs.
John James was found not guilty OF an as
sault and battery.
In the cases ef Daniel Lyons for an assault
and =. Creigler for larceny noLLe prOss was