New-York daily tribune., 1865-12-27
welded. WOE.
THE STRONG DIVORCE SUIT.
TW NTI ETH D A Y.
THE SUMMING UP.
Mr.. Graham's Argument for the
Defense.
T W e NTI ETH D A Y
THE SUMMING UP


The twentieth days proceedings in the
Strong divorce trial were cOmm1nced yesterday morn
ing at IL O'Clock. There is q change Of scene. The
witnesses have all left the stand and the details are
rTeyocably before the world Immediately after the
opening Of the Court Mr. Graham commenced his sum.
ming up for the defense. substantially follows:
May please the Court and Gentlemen of the Jury The
Court yourselves and the counsel either side have been
associated fo unusual period in the performance Of grave
and important duty. The sphere OF each has been dis
tnct aud separate. IL has been marked by its own
appropriate phase and measure and responsbiityi but
be confessed after all that by far the heaviest burden
Las fallen upon you. The personal sacrifices you have been
compelled to make are not oen equaled in Judicial pro
ceedings. You must be- wearied and exhausted. Our
journey has not been uniformly pleasant In few hours
my learned associates and myself will have become
hours after that learned adverseres will have fol-
lowed into the retirement and last OF all comes the
hnal office Of the Court and then stand upon your domain
and that while the law has declared to be your undputed and
ndputabe province where decide the issues Of this
painful CONTROVERSY under tao influence and prerove OF the
solemn obligations which bind you Let US all then maintain
patience and endurance TO the last and let demean
to the close that when shall have
returned TO the ayocons OF daily lie again assuming those
duties which the future has in for may be per-
ited to ecur to the in which we have here been
poyed with conscnces with ourselves and free from
any and every disturbing influence.
Counsel then alluded considerable length to the objects
Of a jury and the duties Of jurors and resumed Before
proceed the labor before permit ask what kind
Of q case 10 It that is now before usi
The CASE STATED.
husband and father fear only in and not In
reality, appears before you and asks for the dissolution
of hi. marriage relations. What is his complaint The
pledged her his affections for the period Of her life He
deposited her beneath the roof of hs mother Accord
she crawed there ike a serpent; she seduced his own
brothers she drew him on to the commission OF incest and
by that crime has plunged herself and all connected with her
into the very loves. depths Of disgrace This Is the
ex!ravssant theory Of the plaintiff in this case Il il
one feature Of tha, theory which you as responsible
men, cannot receive, then You must reject the
whole o it, Unless this wife sedueed his brother and drew
him ON 20 the commission o incest then th whole story
false They have got TO stand that feature OF IT, or they
have to fall the whole theory which they have sdyanced
that this brother seduccd wife 1t shall be my effort in
tie course Of remarks shall make TO you satisfy
you that absurd more peposterous theory was
never presented in court justice You have to drink the
entire conen, OF the cup they place IN your hands, OF you
MI Graham then moved that the frs, issue presented the
part Of the plaintiff BE- e1pansed on the ground Of indefinite
the sne The first issue presented s: Has the de-
fendAn since her masse with the plaintiff an8 before the
connencemen, Of tbs ae,ion committed adultery with I'd
ward stTong No time or place laid in that issue and
submit that II woud be perfect mockery 10 allow this jury
that issue IN the affirmative and at the sane time
require them to specify no time place at which and where
the ofense owhch they convict this defendant was com
mitted.
Mr Graham requested the Court 10 charge the following
Marriage under our statute. 60 far as rs validity in Law
concerned l. civil 10 the contraction OF which the
consent capable competent parties Is all that Is essential
without copulation, being sufficient to form the
contract make II perfect Il be continued in the
mode where either party would have the night TO claim
gdca termination dissolution of the contract by OF
adultery Of the other. 3 Though marriage may be
rserd 10 tue designated the its duties aud
obligations mus, be learned from the Bible The law does not
assume specify them T. Adultery is character
lied as .n oiiense IN the stauteathough not indicabe
under law Being ohene the defendant l. entitled
10 the benefit Of principles Of law against the pres
en charges f,yt that she innocent Of them until proved
guilty: sond that every reasonable doubt Is her property
and that the plaintiff must her 70 be guilty beyond every
doubt before the jury find her Adultery
OF the will or mind dngulsh fTom an act Of vo'
lie poiev In hi, state to prevent the dissolution of mar
any other than according 10 strict law and no
tua desire terminate it, however strong, can or will be
Acknowledged by the Courts or allowed to aid or strengthen
which, under other circumstances could not succeed
This not only true In reference to marriages where there
ISSUE but applies with greater force to those where there
are children affected by the maintenance dissolution
of the marriage relation Under the Levica law the car
nal brother with brotherswie distinctly
forbidden 10 thus high moral ofense and the presumption
OF Law that the defendant Is innocent oi adultery at all 70 De
taken "a still against the idea OF her having committed
ncesuous adultery the higher crime the stronger the
sumption Of innocence and the greater tue necessity for proof
from the party making the charge Our law does not per
nit party charged with adultery to shake oil tue marriage
5th ed 26 81 The facts charged in such have still
to be proved The rule applies with greater strcness where
as in this case the adultery is denied party indicted Tor
crime can plead Guilty in Court and be punished upon
couvc,lon-no in civil proceeding based upon adultery
10 The law permits defendant action this kind
erpose an without oath With The eject iyer
fel by oath ID s2 This being legal privilege the jury
can draw no unNorlbe inference from Its exercise II Is
conferred 5eaht and not As an injury to the party acting
Mr. Graham requested the Cour, to charge the jury that
though they believed all the facts ale esed in evidence
still their duty they believed that these acts were they
occurred snow and believed by the plaintiff to be harm
less that these facts cannot be turned into evidence Of
unit so as to Justify verdict against the defendant a they
cannot evidence her guilt simply in consequence Of
her admissions that the jury cannot convict the defendant
within the issues submitted upon her unsupported declare
that account of the children concerned IN tins case
such admissions be scanned with greater cauton that
the bearing of @ upon the interests OF he children TO
attended in the making OF the verdict that each act
be proved independently Of her admison that the at
missions her part be takena proof Of guilt that If
the Jury believe that the aeged declarations or admissions
OF guilt the part of the defendant either said to be
tanned in the .ocaed OF Jams 1902 or the note
= 1882, aegedto have been nade 10 Mrs Bede
snd Mrs. Benjamin Strong were made al time and Under
showing the object of the defendant was
reconciliation with the plaintiff and that for that pnrpose she
deemed advisable TO e1cglpaie the plaintiff brother and
the entire guilt TO herself without reference 10 the
real thinking thereby to gain the plaintiffs favor and
conce him herself such declarations or admissions
entitled to weight whatever trwyman ast Twyman y
Missouri H. 3S H. II the jury believe that these ,ieged
declarations or admissions were made by the defendant in
OF secret understanding between her aud the
plaintiff that she make them, either to him before
his family and the world or to exoulpae his brother
the niamy sin of his condIctssd that these
declarations admission did not aud do not truly expose the
facts they entitled to no weight whatever.
C0NNIvANCE OF THE Plaintiff. 80.
The law imposes upon the husband the duy OF cautiously
protecting his wife from all asoeatons that ms s1poe b.t
purity TO hazard and II this duty s neglected snh e cor
ruption OF the vile II the result there u oo
within the meaning the law; "f asysem OF improper
f.miotes be established between the alleged aduteres.
and her paramount which the husband nu't rave seen or
cond have seen had he been ordinarily reasonably aea
tive to his Wife the will infer corrupt Intention Ton the
part OF the husbind) the result end WI no, eau ior
NOR. direct proof husband living In daily contact with
I wife under the same with her cannot be pre.umcd
o. he iynorrnt of her general conduct habits. II
,Ia ia9con.s of The defendants brother At Waverey
va. nnconcesisd. and was observed by tie members
OF his mothers family the presumption l. ,in the sb
f l.sr nroof 10 tho contraTy either that be knew OF
n nv unst ba, heard Of It from the members of the family
~ n The iury believed the statement OF Mrs Bede that
iig. mother (who bnd objected to the attentions
~ Fwnrd ~ strong the defendant and wondered that the