The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1871-02-16

because, II II were otherwise there is not one case
IL very rarely indeed that the parties surprised
In the direct fact OF adultery. In every almost
It by fair inference as necessary Conclusion; and
unless this we've the case, and unless this were so
marital rights The only general rule thai can be
laid downupo the subject Is that the circumstances
must be such as weuld lead the guarded discretion OF
aTeasonable and just to the conclusion for 1t is
not TO lead to rash and incorporate Judgment
moving upon appearances that are equally capable
of two interpretations neither is it to matter OF
artificial reason, judging upon such things dIfer-
entity from what would strike the careful and eau
tious consideration OF a discreet man.
Where there is no direct proof or adultery, the
rule has been elsewhere more briefly stated TO re-
quire that there be such proAimate circumstances
proved as by former decisions or in their own
nature, satisfy the legal conviction OF the court that
the criminal act has been committed
In order to infer adultery from general conduct,
IL seems necessary that what the law calls suspcio
violenta, or violent suspicion, should be created.
Thus, married man going into snown bros9el
the very best evidence HIS going there and remain.
lug alone for some time in room with common
cumstance or woman going to such place with
man furnishes similar proof OF adultery.
AS 70 pToot py confession OF the party no difference
other. deoelate ana voluntary confession OF
guilt is among the most weghty and eectusl proofs
In the law. But in such case you must be satisfied
that the confession was made. and that the party
making It intended 70 be understood as admitting
ness or In passion Alter the patient attention
which you have given to this case, l do
not propose to read 10 you anv part of the evil
dence except that part OF it which helbelant and
respondent each give their account OF what occurred
at their home, Twentieth and Green streets, at and
about the time OF the separation. The Judge then
| proceeded to read those portions Of the test
mony and afterwards continued his.charge as fol-
! lows:-
In weighing the testimony of the witnesses in this
case, you will consider lis inherent character as
evincng truthuness, OF the want Of it, the charac-
ter Of the witnesses who testified; their relation to
the parties; the motives that would be likely to n-
| luence their testimony; their opportunity for
knowing the matters about which they testify; and
the light If any, which is shed on the testimony of
each by the other testimony in the case.
The testimony in this case naturally divides itself
/. The testimony relative TO the alleged confession
OF guilt OF the respondent
q The testimony relative to the alleged visits Of
| the respondent to houses OF i-fame.
| g. The testimony relative to the alleged improper
interviews Of the respondent with Mr.. Fetter and
The only witness who testines to the alleged adj
though there are witnesses who speak Of the re,
! spoI dent going on her knees to her husband and
sSeness S she asked wss e for the ons Of adueTy
II it were true she asked forgiveness, the forgive
mess sne asSea was sS 70 ANY
nited against her husband, as to the crime OF adul
terry or, finding her husbands mind incensed
by asking forgiveness, without regard to the nhu-
ences which were operating on his mind to incense
So the alegea, declaration Of the RESPONDENT
your advice long ago this would have never
happened" may be understood with reference to one
supposed cause Of offense or another. Neither Mrs.
Harriet Robbins nor the other witnesses say that
in that interview there was as any reference to the
the alleged conversation was with reference to the
jea'opsy Of the respondent OF her husband
The libeants account Of the alleged admission of
guilt is that on Sunday previous to sending his wife
away he accused her OF improper actions in the
past, al told her was satisfied that she was guilty
Of adultery with Charles K. Elmes and George
W. Fetter, to which she tauntingly replied that
1t was 80 and dared me to prove 1t. told her
would endeavor to do it, and ordered her out OF the
On re-examination the libelant said the converse
ton began about Mr.. Fetter calling to set an even
ing when they would go to see Miss Dur. 'She said
was entirely too familiar with Miss DUFF, that she
did not like our actions, that she would not visit
her and would not have her visit US. 1 told her
perfect lady, That led to the conversation about Mr.
Fetter and George Elmes In which charged her
In weighing this testimony you will consider
whether a woman would be likely to admit her
guilt OF adultery to her husband. And If it were
said, whether it was said deliberately or In an ebul-
lition OF passion in conversation in which there
Is elimination and recrimiDation on each side
You will also consider whether, when the libellant
made the charge against his wife, as testified by
him, he had any Information or evidence upon which
he could ground such chs rge In his evidence he
does not aver that he had any knowledge OF any
men named, or of the alleged visits
OF his wife to houses OF ill-fame, before he made
in the whatever that shows that he had any
knowledge or the alleged mproprieties or his wife
Elmes and MIR. Fetter, except the circumstance Of
her leaving the paror in 1885 where she was alone
for a minute or so with Mr. Elmes and the circum-
stance OF the Kissing In 1861 1862 when Mr.. Fet-
ter kissed Mrs. Robbins and Mr.. Robbius kissed Mrs.
Fetter In the presence each other the entry on
the occasion OF the bellant and his wife going to
Mr. tetters house to tea, and which the libellant
seems never To have treated an offsnse at the
time or since, except that has been given In evil
dence in this case.
You win also consider the conduct OF the libeant
at, and Immediately after, the lime or the alleged
confession OF his wife, and whether it such as
having had revealed to him the guilt OF his wife
| would have exhibited
sion OF his wife, within hOnr or two thereafter,
he Oined with her and the family. After dinner ha
| went to his fathers, and took walk with his IA
ther; then returned hOme did rot take tea. and
gave as a reason that he seldom takes 1t. He then
went to see Mr.. NOrthrop, but did not find him /;
then went to the Continental Hotel, and then home
about 10 O'Clock. On Monday morning he took
breakfast with the family; he thinks Mrs. Robbins
poured out had two three interviews with Mr.
| NorthrOp that day: he went to the Walnut Street
Theatre that evening; WAS there alone couple of
hours he thinks; went frcm the theatre righthome;
got home about twelve O'Clock; went up
stairs and fouId his wife in bed: his hrst remark
was she would have to leave that hOuse the next
morning Mrs. Blake and the RESPONDENT hOrh say
that he break iasted with the family on Tuesday
morning, Mrs Robbins being at the breakfast table;
and this does Aot appear TO be denied by the
libellant.
You will consider ths testimony and say whether
not this the concuct which whn be-
lieved his wife was guilty OF adultery would have
pursued.
bear in mind the denial which the respondent makes
OF this alleged confession. She says, ''In the con-
versation n that Sunday morning he said nothing
about Mr.. Hines; what he said was about Mr..
Fetter; he said he supposed that had been to
church with Mr., FetJer; did not tauntingly reply
and admit that had committed adultery with Mr..
Fetter and dare him To prove it; there was no such
Yon will also remember her deniaIs OF her alleged