The New York herald., 1864-02-19
THE MELVILLE DIVORCE CASE.
rhe Ev idsnse on Both sides Closed ant
the Case Given 10 the Jury.

rhe Evidence on Both sides Closed and
tbe Case Given 10 the jury.
euPREME CouRr-ciRcuIr.
before Judge Smith
vxa ss-h the cpeuiog of Court this morning the
the defendant resumed his argument on the
sa,.eieocy Of he defendant to appear a. witness, and
aced ,he case Of Marsh Potter support OF bis
Sca.
Mr. Fullerton replied very briefly, taking the ground
hat lhe code vidence of Mr. Melville was 10
samissbie.
Judge smith, have thought over the matter since
s, evening aad nave come TO the conclusion that under
sha code idcpce Of the defendant would De in-
~ ger The mo;'on Of be counsel IS therefore aehsa
COUNSEL defenoe-will your Honor give Us me
esneht o, exception,
jssise Smgtb-Cerlaniy
N',okD's STATEMENT
sse NcCord No ISL Houston street, was then called
% nc stand -
q Ind YOU ever sec Mr. Melville tnere2 A. did not.
q You have kept The promises No 63l Houston street
o I,,d Won ever see Mr. Melville tbere2 A. did not
sonr kucw gentleman; never saw him before TO
{ You generally know all those who frequent your
o. 10 you Know Rose Madden9 A. do
q Wnei MAS she dong IN your hoasef A. she lived
Witt me as u servant and also as a boarder.
q to& long did she live with your A. About i've
years
,ro-sexernined--Do You mean TO say that you know
a.
q Are there not those who come into your house
whom You do not see A. No.
4. Are yon always at home? A. Pretty much all the
sine, very seld m go out
O DO YOU reco!ect every one who enters your house2
A 0h no hundreds come and 60 without my being able
~ reeoi.ect their faces
-dmec,-suppose person in the habit Of visit
rs your house for period OF five or SIX years would
yoa DOT be alie to secolect his face9 a. Yes
Counsel for the deence-Tnat is case your Honor
Counsel tho plaintiff propose 10 read the
written testimony OF The Witnesses examined yeser
dGE as IN
uoouscl for the deence-I object 70 The reading OF tne
apCuucus.
Judge smith-wnat is the object OF this testimony
Counsel Tor he pinintin-For the purpose OF corrobo
rstios " hat they testified 70 yesterday.
Counsel The deendani-lhe first thing you ought
do produce the person who drew up these state
u,eD,s / would Ike him on the sand.
Counsel Tor the plantin-He IS sCk and cannot at
Counsel for the defendant-ls he2 I shall argue to
abe Iury have done all could 10 get him here
The Court held that such testimony as that offered by
ste counsel fer the plaintiff would only be admissible
the other side for the purpose Of impeachment
Mr. Tuier.op-Your H.Dor Will please note our ex-
cAsncp.
sInming up for the defendant the counsel
tck the ground that the evidence OF the witnesses for
lne plantin unworthy Of belief, and was directed
nAGiy against Madam Bell, with whom they were on
bad he also held that If Mr.. Mellvile's mouth
not sealed by the decision Of the Court he could
aApian why this conspiracy brought about
i not follow that because q married
entered house Of prostitution he guilty Of adultery
Hs may nsve had legitimate business there, and his
1assutious may have been as pure as the angels Mr.
Neiiye have entered such house for the purpose
u sens some Of his ewery Just the sames physician
would the pursuit Of his calling. II u
matter OF trade, aud many merchants who stand much
higher IN The community than the defendant were in
the habit OF doing 1t daily 1t did not follow that be
osuse a went to bar 10 take drink. and while
4nere threw hs around pretty girl and kissed her.
Wroog hat N tue abstract there was nothing bad or
vcicue about IT, and tho jury should not attach any i'm
yortsDce TO . IN conclusion the counsel stated hnt he
believed his client to be aI innocent and the Jury
responded 70 their oaths they would upon light
grounds sever those whom God had joined together.
. NIX. TJLiERruSs Address
NJ. Fullerton followed pehaf OF the plaintiff The
caee. be caimed Involved in nushell, the evi.
aeUce was br and the witnesses were few. The
81 on de other side mad alluded to things which
sreen tne issues In this and this foreign matter
brought IN for the purpose Of misleading the jury.
ne counsel defendant also taken occasion 10
Sharne the witnesses for the plaintiff with perjury, SIM
Div because they we're poor iaen proestutes Was Mrs
EsMvie TO follow her husband 70 these bouses Of III re-
pute and mlngle with hts loose companions, TO
svdeuce of hrs guilt or WAS she 70 take the witnesses No
sAe found them She could not take other step
abe she and The counsel the defendant
sAcud not rail against those poor creatures for Nell.
Vile himself, BY hts acts responsible for
their appearance as witnesses The trial.
1Ae speaker then proceeded refue the idea
beli and that Mr.. MeviIles guilt innocence only
sseoondary consideration. He could not believe for
tves the the defence attributed they
would stop short u running her IN the most complete
ber great by publicly advertising her place of
busiuess and peculiar calling. And IN ,ter what way
6e case went Madam bell would out OF the court
osscr of than when she entered IT, Sacred the bond
ms,rmuuy may be- IL the duty of The jury this
rase TO dissolve the contract il the plaintiff had estab
iisoed The proofs Of tbe defeDdants adultery.
The counsel then called the attention of tie
Court and jury to peadngs where the defendant, upon
bis own admrson did not deny The ch,ge that he
N tie habit OF visiting houses OF prostitution.
The counsel Tor the defence here objected TO the read
ma OF the pcsdnes this stage OF the The Court
overrued the objection and noted the couuses excep
t,cp.
tAoo Mercer by Mary Fell in VII ch he did
sot seek u deny the alteration The desndant denied
that he visited Jane Nc ord's he sileBt
o. his visiting Mary Pels. He could pot deny IL for The
evidence OF his visits was overwhelming II was hd-
isson the bI oadcsi possible terms, and that alone
shouId oonvlpce the Jury OF hs guilt. When man
~eut INTO pouse of prostitution the inference
thai lie went thei 20 consnmmae his guilt, and
say hs prayers II lac had any legitimate busine
there could casiy 10 the satisfaction the
jury assumed the part Of the deepoe that the
seieodant was employed 10 selling ewelry when making
sbese visits 20 Mercer street but there proc Of
the fact. His visits 10 Madam bell were irequeni-
every day oociirrcncesand yet the only articles of jewel
be sold during that period watch and pair
oi earrings ID. counsel then proceeded TO review the
evidence Of the witness for the paDtn and said that s
oet they all shame they had not their
tSuthfaness 1he very that the Confessed
Sheir shame without Withholding any thing
elusive their tru,hnees and because they did not
rseort 10 fasehood 10 cover up their degradation was
no reason Why be jury should discard their testimony
unworthy oi belief He then oompared their
Co the stand with that OF Madam Bell, and said that
while they were wiring u tell the whole truth,
Madam Bell trying shield the defendant. had per
jursd herself beyond redemption. Mr. fucrtons closing
remarks iorcibe aud eloquent, and made marked
Suppression all his bearers
JuisEs CHARGE
Jsdge Smith then proceeded TO charge the jury uron
the lac governing the The plaintiff sought 10
divorce, the ground OF adultery. The counsel
10th sides have faithfully performed their duty aud II
vss DOW the duly Of the jury to pass upon the follow
Frs--was Tie plsntiE married TO the defendant
Aecond-iIas The defendant between the month Of
AIril 1861 aud the Gin Of March 1867 house
~ no lag Mercer street. the of New York,
ntted adultery with any person uugnown to the plain
an
Th,ri-Hss the defendant within said time ard al said
plsce, committed adultery with person Known as Mary
neiR
FourttHas the defendant, IN or during the year 1858
1869, the bouse oi Jane McCofd No II Me Ger
street, 10 The CITY Of New York. committed adultery with
any person unknown 10 The paintiis
FfL-Hss the defendant, during or snce the wear
1teO 1851 at The house OF ord, at No.
g3l Houston street. the city New York committed
adultery witn any person unknown 10 the psintdf