The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1866-05-08

n behalf of her sons under the principle OF the aw
| e. chamberlain VS. The People, 20 N Y, 80. mar,
Iiage thus proven by the direct evidence of o.
tie parties thereto, and by tie asses OF
proof above mentioned, requires strong evidence to
c0ntOVert II, especially when there is born of
the parties between whom The marriage IS alleged to
have taken place.
In this case IT is contended that there are objec-
tiOns which destroy the force OF the evidence above
referred to- and that there facts which sho that
such marraPe could not have taken pace These
obiec'lOns and facts are:-
That IN none OF the letters to Harriet does
CHRIS call her his vile, or style himself her hus-
That Harriet at the time of the alleged marriage
with hr sty was married to one Harrington who
g. That Harriet has stated that she was never mar
rted to ChrstV.
4. That although Christy abandoned Harriet many
years ago, and Ived with another woman, yet Har
riet took no proceedings.
The nrst objection is almost too trivial to notice
persons have different ways of opening and clOsing Q
their letters, and vary that from TIME to time. Out
of three letters in evidence written by Christy to
HIS son Byron in none does he call him his son. and
in but ne does he style himself father; and the
remarH is true of twenty ett9 written William
yet there IS no question that he the father OF
these two boys.
With respect to the second objection, this rests
upon proof OF admissions and reputation, gwen by
John Roberts, Nathan Harrington, Joseph Cooley
LOUIS Cooley and Catharine Roberts.
All The evidence tends to show that Chrsty was
an Hritab Q and violent man. and che may have
feared personal violence to herself and children at
hls hands, or may have feared that any action on
her part would still turher incense Chrlsty
interfere with the prospects Of her children by
dennP the return of the fathers naurdl affections
more improbable and uncertain. chlld's welfare
and SOhcliude for its future welfare always up
permOst in the thoughts of a mother and furnishes
the handspring TO her actions; or, again, she may
have been waiting with patient resignation
Christy to tire of his love and to the old
ahecton exhibited in his letters to herseI and her
sons. If the hau taken any proceedings, what cou d
she have oLtainedY A mere support for herself, and
run the chance OF running the prospects of her chill
dren and putting up an insuperable oar against
Ieconcil alton.
Inc Iorbearance OF a woman and mother, under
these cIcumstan ces she doubtless unaware that
such 1orbearance would have any prejudiclal effect
should not be received too harshly.
With regard to the fifth oDjection:-r il of a
negative Character; it is that, II ChrstY mar
rlea TO Harriet he would not have married Mary, as
that would involve HIM in the crime of OIRamy.
To sustain this objection, the marriage with Mary
must first be shown. The evidence to sustain this IS
oil the chaI acer that 10 sustain the marriage
with Harriet Ihe deatn-bed scene IS not now ie-
ferred tol 1t is strong but not stronger than that
to Mary are slgned "Your loving husband" and he
leaks OF Mary in them his wife; but their gene
raj tenor and internal evidence is not SO strong
those TO Harriet and one of those to Harriet is ad
dressed Mrs. Il p ChristY
d., 1t IS true he introd Mary as his wife; so he
ingly joking way he ,old Eliza Pratt that he and
Mary had got married while they were off travel.
ling; he also told Waller and Campbell, in much
more serious way crcums anhally, that he had mar
ried Harriet
II the evidence adduced to prove the marriage
between Chrlstv and Mary IS sufficient 1t is difficult
to perceive why the evidence adduced to establish
the marriage between hlm and Harriet is not also
sufficient.
And as the classes of evidence to support the one
are the same The classes TO support the other
there can be no preference favor of the last one
But nen theT" are, as in the OF Harriet certain
matters casting Suspicion on this marriage of Mary
Why, II she were married at Ithaca, did she have
marriage ceremony performed when Christy was in
eXtremesS Was 1t because she anticipated trouble
rom HarIietY She knew all about Harriet when
she married as alleged, at Ithaca Why did she not
then anticipate trouble, and guard against ItG
Again, if she were ChIsty's wife and possessed
wltely feelings, why did she, Will eXcudmgChrsty's
sons from their fat hers presence for fear OF exciting
LIN, impose ON MN the excitement of q marriage
ceremony?
The presumptions spoken of in the 4th N Y against
former marriage proved by putat.on in favor of
q subsequent marriage, proved by positive direct
evidence, has no application TO this case, for here
there s no direct eVld nce of the second marriage
(eXcluding tine death bed ceremony and the testl-
mony OF the minister who performed the marriage
ceremony IN eGtreniS, leaves great doubt as 10
whether it was performed before, besides the
acquaintance which it Is claimed ned into the
marriage with Mary confessedly commenced III
meIetri cious intercourse.
II the death bed ceremony (concedng it 10 have
takenpace, which is disputed) it can hardly be eX-
pected TO have muca influence on the question of the
marriage with Harriet. 1t was performed when the
man was i'l eTtremis, helpless surrounded by Mary
and heI friends; when he was apparently Obvious
not only of harIiet, but Ol his children also. A
marriage under these circumstances afford no
presumption against previous marriage.
A few words on this marriage ceremony performed
by the minister. The minister says ChrstY said 1t
had long been his wish and determination to have
thing or other had always occurred to prevent It.
Rather singular statement tor Chrlsty TO make, it,
as Eliza Pratt swears, he had married Mary, at
Ithaca years before
Taking the whole of the evidence on this point
together it is evident that there is great probability
OF jury finding that Christy was married TO Har-
ret, and therefore, il must be assumed (as the Sur
rogate seems to have assumed in considering the
second and third questions, that Cnristy was law.
iully married to Harriet and that William and
Byron were his lawful sons and hers.at-law.
II the surrogate had decided that there
marriage between ClTlStV and Harriet. think suCh
decision would have been against the weight of evil
dencei at all events, that the ties smonY OF such
character as to render it expedient to have verdict
OF jury on II.
In the case at bar it appears that Mr.. ChrIs'y
while laborng under tit Of INSANITY Jumped out of
a window, striking hs head ON the stones below and
so severely injuring himself to cause paralysis
from the necS down, and to result in death twelve
days afterwards.
During the whole of this twelve DAYS his only sus-
tenance we're liquids and he was obliged to lay on
his back in one position.
TINS statement naturally leads to the conclusion
that his mind on the tenth day was materially
paired and weakened and understand the medica
testimony, although the doctors widely differ IN
many things sustalns the natural conclusion. The
great prepOnderance OF the medical testimony that
Mr. Christy, on the ninth day, although possessing
consciousness, could have had but little memory
and less reasoning faculty
Does the evidence of what Christy actually did
and said after the injuries contrOvert the medical
opinlOnsl
The matter testified to by these witnesses all come
lthin the principle aId down by Sir John NIcOll.
They are either rational answers made to some
simple questions, they are requests for nourish-
ment, or they are snort remarks on his memory
| being suddenly aroused by the sight OF some
1amllar person or object by some familiar sound
his all shows II is true some consciousness, out not
necessarily, as DR.. Rogers well expresses it,
consciousness. Nor do they show sound dspOs-
ing mind under the principles laid down by Sir
John Nlcol The testimony of the doctors who at
tended hlm ana their examination as TO his sauItY
Is liable to the same criticism Christy gave rational
answers 10 questions put. What those questions