The Portland daily press., 1874-02-02

Inere Is the evidence of Mrs. Hoi len VINO happehet
TO be in Pictou last July when dbls VISIT was maze
There is the evidence Of young man who had liveC
next neighbor to this girl extending back period
twenty years who knew her s Me was IN Pco ia
| summer. There present certain articles o
colhirg, bottle of medisne ana pictures, wIict
| of larceny hut we trace them from the possession
this RESPONDENT down to Pictou into the possession
| Jobn Walters family. Then there are the four bic.
tnres taken by rist i'm this city for Mrs. Waite
| herself One of them being Mrs. Waite and two o.
them copied from snail picture of two children
| whom she said was herself and brother when they
were nine and elevt n years old but by compari-
son with these children of John Waller YOU will See
| to be pictures of them.
We the history and career of this resnondent
from the time when she landed here in 1869 through
all the phases and transformations ch she has IN
dergone, down to the lime of her marriage with Ed
ward f. Waite. We have presented 10 You he te IL
tpony OF 81 different Witnesses and the OF y reason
the government didn't continue pour in the test-
mony was di not tel justified in putting the coun-
ty to the additional ex uense, when as it seems to
me- the proof most conclusive to the identity Of
this respondent.
Mr.. Libby here recitei briefly the testimony of the
witnesses who identified the respondent as hav;n
worked for them under the name of Kate Waller
ami Carrie M. Kent
In addition to this chain of evidence we have tho
letters produced By Mr.. Waller, covering a period of
four years, and unmistakbv in the handwriting of
the respondent, tested by comparison with the two
letters winch she admits she wrote. You have the
thetestmony OF the experts and the respondent aon't
dare 10 produce single of those older experts
tnat they say exist in The cityani ask them wheth
er OF not in their opinion there is any doubt about
the twentv letters having be- written by the
same person who admits that she the letter to
MIR. Waller.
Now what defence does she set up? This woman
who so courts an investigation on paper when she
Thought there was little danger of it-who when of
1ered an opportunity that an innocent woman would
accept with alacrty to give account of herself
her birth. her relations, and where she came from
who, by putting her husband and husbands father
on the stand, could show whether she was in Pictou
for week last July, faer which if established
must overthlown entirely the case for the govern
ment hides her innocent face in her muff and hires
her counsel to speak four hours and half on the
want OF proof in the government case This inno-
family to show that the articles of clothing we have
presented have been in herpossessi sits back
and allows her counsel to say to you in his first and
last words-"The government has failed to prove to
You that the clergyman who celebrated tina. mar
rage between John Waller and his wife was legally
authorized under the laws of Nova Scotia perform
such ceremony ,'-hopng the government may fail
on some technical point that she may continue in
the adqlterous intercourse which has existed be-
tween her and Edward F. Waite since April last
That is the high moral tone she exhibits and it COR
respondsswell with the woman.
She is the woman who can sit by and see her own
children burst into tears and not muscle move but
keep up her smiles and talk with her associate on the
other side of the bar-she is the delicate ma ernal
and sensitive being who is almost ready to drop into
her grave at the idea OF such charge being made
against her. She is the woman who courts proof
and seeks investigation, but whom the time comes
don't step out boldly and tell her story but skuks
behind technical point in the hope that the govern
mont may fail to show she is guilty beyond feason-
able doubt.
Her counsel tells you that the reason she did not
take The stand is that it is not wise to put in teti
money for the defence when the government have
failed to make out case. In other words it is wiser
TO allow this woman to 60 out of the court room
with the st gma upon her of being suspected of
being married to two men rather than let her go on
the stand and give clean account of herself from
beginning to end This crowd don't see the point
that that clergyman down in Nova Scotia was not
authorized to perform this marriage; that Is too fine
hnf ,af 81
no other leg to stand on. Another reason given is
one that approach with great deal Of hest alton
in which ladies find themselves and that nerhans
this respondent is tu that condition now IT She is
if she has dared after the notice she has had to allow
herself to become so she is guilty of a degradation
and an infamy that would not have believe. Sup
pose it is tue, does that prevent her taking the
stand and telling the trnth?, What an absurdity!
Mr.. Libby then commented upon the law relating
to proof of forei marriages and admitted that the
law in England was as commended for, but in this
p. 39l, and also Clayford case Z, Green d. ST.
Now under this law you have the ccnfessson of
this respondent to Mrs Holden. which is undenied,
that she was married in the room where they then
were at John Walters fathers house and that she
remembered Of MIR. West going after the minister,
Mr. HaIdman. In addition you have that long ar
and loving wife," "your poor unfortunate and lone
ly wife," and so on ad infinitum "Kate Waller"-
And yet the counsel claims the government that we
have not made out a case. Well suppose we had
only shown suspicion of marriage down in Nova
Scotia what innocent woman would stop there and
allow these facts to 60 unchallenged before the
community?
The first witness who appears before you is John
Waller and al the walls of the yrtuo1s counsel's
wrath and indignation are poured on his devoted
head and he is all sympathy and tenderness, and
mets almost to tears when he considers the desper-
ate strait which TIL, woman's foolish conduct has
brought her into before the world.
John waller Is the man who staid at home and
them the man who has stood by his post from day to
day and borne his poverty which might have been
alleviaed II this woman had had spark of mater
nal love in her, to say nothing of the love for her
husband. This is the awful man who is one of the
witness es in this case-ttis man VIII has been both
father and mother to his children. And who has
borne long and patiently the trials and tribulations
which have been sent to him, finally comes before
you an for what purpose? To show that the wo-
the eye of God and man, who, when confronted With
he proof privately and asked to withdraw herself
from virtuons society persists in staying where she
and Drawing public oplni n; I'll at this woman who |
has played her role long and successfully is his
wife. Did John Waller sup when he called Mrs.
Waitcs attent on. through MIS-. II slen to the ex-
istepce of these things that it would be
ry to come into court of justice? No Who is It
that is responsible for this geat public scandal? Who
is it that seeks the nooriey of this shameless life?
1t is this young woman. John Waller has not en-
joyed this trial He has not enjoy d bringing his lit
tie children in court to see their mother smile COM
pl Gently at their tears. He don't enjoy the de as
of this trial. but say it is mans du1y in case Of
pub ic morals this respond, mt has commit ed, to
come publicly into court, and if necessary state the
facfs hat they MAY b. known OF all men.
John Waller don't want this woman again; he has
had the DISPOSE ion 10 receive her back from the
the time he first knew of this state OF afairs, but
when the scandal is once commenced and it becomes
question of veracity be him aud this resp1n-
dent, and his honor aid family reputation are nvolv
ell, then it is time for him to come forward and say
whether not the charges he has made he is ready
to substantiate by proof
MIR. Libby closed as follows:
The counsel urges upon you the consideration that
If you find this woman guilty you find her guilty of
States prison offence and that no benefit is to be de
lived from this prosecution. say to you that if the
final suggestion which the counsel made that perhaps
a conviction in this may entail on i.nocent
child the consequences of its mothers guilt
is true the man who has dared to cause such pos
sbility that with the months of knowledge he has
had of the charge that Las been mace that he
living with another mans wife, is guilty of graver
offence than would willingly believe him to be; and
if such proves to be the TACT such man deserves to
be indicted for adultery at the first court where the
evidence can be obtained.
CHARGE TO THE JURY.
Judge symonds opened his charge by stating there
was no necessity to dwell upon general principles of
criminal trials and by reminding the jurors that they
were not to be influenced by the public excitement.
The presumption is that the defendant is innocent
The government must satisfy you beyond a reason
able doubt that she is guilty.
1t is incumbent on the government to prove the
two marriages; that the resp1n dent is the person
who married John Waller in 1862, and the person
who marie Edward f. Waite in 1873 and also to
prove that at the time of her marriage to Mr. Waite
John Waller her lawful husband was living. These
are the oDly three ponis which under this indict-
ment 1t is incumbent on the government to prove.
That the respondent was married to Mr.. Waite in
April last is not denied: And it does not to be
disputed that John Waller is the person he repre-.
sents himself to be, and therefore if he was the law
full husband of the respondent at the time of her
marriage to Mr.. Waite that disposes of tie second
point, and the only thing remaining, of which it is
necessary for the government to satisfy you that
the time Of her marrge with MI. Waite she was the
Inn Wol1n fha<
satisfied you of that FACT then of course your verdict
must be guilty. On the other hand if you have any
reasonable doubt upon that point the defendant is
entitled to your verdict. Whether the respondent
was the lawful wife of John Waller at the time of
her marriage with Mr.. Waite is question which is
easily divided into two. First suppose the respond
ent to be the person whom the government alleges,