, 1875-06-25

according 10 tho tcthtcs Of oypor nncn, no that
finally Tho question Of Enilt or Innocence maybe
determined by tho jury IN this Light reflected by
tic surrounding circumstances.
Judge NellHon contt1lne'i' few simple Illus
trAtlons stated with refn,rnca To \ casc ol
this character may enabi" yoa TO UNDER
%isna nnfllcsny for Ptass"t nnsro,os ;h9
and prosumplivo evidence. II 4 witness
a,ould testify that llo Ind Racn tho aotnAl cofn-
mlsron OF Tho eexnn, net charRoI, that would 10
What ia callod slirec. and positive evfdsnce. II
8 w.snens should testify s',st tho vito nnh TIN
aamo room oil night, in s'ich manner ~ tended
to tho conclusion, tint tiluy lad hiept together,
or IT he hpt atlnlitto1 hin guilt. that would be
ctnGI;.,srANTrAL EVIDENCE.
II to letter scceIvo1 bY ttio defendant. OK
picit'y charging him with the Adultery hoo
answered, simply saving: II ain sorry aud
hope TO 10 forgiven Or II. an boiut: titus
charged IN \ conFersatDn bv QUO having All In
forest in tile matter. In l,nh nalc nj ntnwsr
whatever, TINT by natural froecsa Of reasoning
would he prn.ntnpttSc eyldcncn.
The ,fudgo HaiI That c;rc,smet1nttaf oslenco
must be acted upon very cautiously. Esi}eucc
teaTfnS M tho principal question, that ii
ntntary, may bo iako,l up In its orllor; this
!jnt, N 10 Tho writing refotrol to J: secondly,
to tim oral ai1ninsionH; third hs to the taGit
or Implied admission; and, fnrthor, ~ to tho
Ecnoral conduct OF tho defendant. | purpose
briefly to cal your attention to nonic OF tlla moro
hoat1a. fonr cnnrlnsionH should not bc drawn
frCnl ono Of theHo cIassoH OF ayldunce, but
FEnN Alb THE TESTIMONY
on this branc!, Of tho case con!nnod. In taking
that tho plaintiffs lettar Of tho 2Ctli December,
1870 de,naa.l:ug that tho defendant should
leave ].iA pntnt and tho citv. WAS tho first open
act Of hostility. That demand wnA witlldruwn
ut the interyiow had by Tue pArtte. It Mcu!ton's
honHa un tic ovoning Of nec. 30, 1s70. The
plaintiff caimA that that was In dofesonco to tho
wshes OF hIa wife. At HAT titne PAPER, writ
ten By Mr. Ti!ton III rosnoct to hor 1olatons to
tho defendant, was hold bv sfonltou. The copy
which the plaintiff Ind waa toru up after having
bean road or staod to tho defendant. aad Tho
original wns a!to torn M forwards bY sfrA. Ill
ton, with lier t,lalanhs aAaont. iEoof Of tla
contents Of that paper
WAS nuLyp OUT.
hecanao it was tho written confidential communi.
cation y tile Wife to tho husband, and hoca11Aa
1,e waA a party to It's doatr1c:ion hut thnt ru-
ing waB no reArryatlon. N no Charge written by
Afra. Tiiton could bavo been evidence n.aiust
tile defendant. That aau,o evening Mr. Daec1or,
viii, tho Assent OF tho husband, called on Mrs.
Tilton. lie then obtained tho pat,or commonly
called " tho satrac.ton," af.er*arl surrendered
to Sir. afoulton. Tho po1t papar III order ia that
OF Jan. !. 1871. 1t is In Moulton's writing, OK
cept tho Inea At the bottom md tho signature.
hr, s1olIton savs tliat II uas dictated sentence
By sentence, md TINT It waa read over.
Mn. pEEOrEA DES1Ea rHAr n1crATroy
and that realizing. As TO ths degree of credit to
uhlch theeo witnesses thus III conflict NAV
remember tl!as they R,cak Of an ovons
which occurred Mt q titnt Of great o1citamcns.
They may not have been equally attectstl: but.
whilo tho ono was pouring out Ills thoug!,ts in
we'll havo beon moved II sympathy. Tic law
haH tender consideration for au tnttrmity OF
memory thus 1ntaleHtsd. The witness ls not
expected to stcak Of cscn:s ~ith certainty. AZ
nessea, you should be prudent III referoncs to
mero probabilitius. You mo not to indulge In
Hpeculattons. OF ligttly consider matter which
l,aa oeom affirmed because 1t uny not seem roa-
sonabtc.
Tho Judge said D reference by him to
THE OTHER pArERB
would be nearly unnecessary, but from them II
appears tint tho defendant wAA conscious Of
having commistod some wrong or offeuse af-
it,s,et!ng tho piainti!t aud hIs family.
port Of tho paposs, I submit thom to
your consideration, that you may, taking
them In connection with tho rrcsH at large. do
ter1nsue what that wrong OF oiTenso Was. Pass
attention to tho alleged oral admissions. Tho
confessions OF Q party malo deliberately against
his own interest a.. 10 the facts known and nn-
desssood by him. IL clearly proved. Ia regarded
III OF u}Eu ElA6d VI Gfl1CklGel Auu AG1GEfGUl$
| 10, because 1t is contrary TO experience for q
man to admit what hurts aim, It not trus. Ex-
perieuce proves rathpE ttA nian
EyApE Oh DENY THE TRUTH
When tho truth hurte. 1.stimony to prove an
oral udmishion should bo carefully rcrutl0tZnd.
THO Jury should 10 satialed that tho witness
clearly understood correctly, remembered And
| fairly ropaated what w1B said: but caution
| agniist rolytng on such testimony too implicitly
should flud its counterpaEin IN the caution against
I %t,n I'm rnn1xt rail rfh
The thi,d cnsB Of oyitlulce is tin arralgnmeut
stated as TO sac4t Or implied admissions. Iu the
oryit appuala to principe peculiar to pleaump-
uous ovllenco. It ID assu1o'a that on suitable o.
interests that on hons wtustly ci,arged or ma
lgned, thoy will apaak ost ln denial or justilca.
tioa; heuce 1t IL silenee my often DO
REGARDED Az CONFESSION.
The most obvious difficulty IN applying this doc
| triue Ariso8 from confederation that Al 1neu
may not act alike In tie same circumstances,
and that tue Jury may possibly ascrthe to souBe
Of guilt what really WIS !uo to moro Bnrprise or
| to Ro,no unknown rcstrint. Tue testimony of
tho ptainti1 ind Of Mr. md Mrs. Moulton IL aB
10 tic forms Of atlmlssio+-tle ono oral aud tho
other tacit or implied. 1n considering {sa.d
Judge Ecison) thoHo portions Of that teatimo-
ny which rsIate to tho tofondant's actual nd
missions OF guilt, you viii recall tue doctrine
| stated unl0r former hrld to tho offcct thAt a
reasonable doubt as to tant Of apprehension, OF
Of memory. or OF fHiInca, III that witness prov
log such admission, lnlpsas upon the Jury the
| exercise OF
| GREAT MUIIoH
| upon tho testimony. YGl will fn1ufrc whether
tho Witnesses arc eorrectin stsss statements, or
whether the tlefenlant waa misunderstood BY
thon,. In considering tlp other portions Ut theiE
Testimony, III 10 t!ls Implied adlnlasous, alBo
ooiltsaLictol by tho defosdhut, you must Inquire
whether IT. tho conyerBtions lad BY him with
tho Witnesses his Rdulety With tho plaintiffs
| vito Wns spoken Of in cear aud e1press terms.
II YOU lind that Ao thus charged, SO TINT net.
Ing ou tho inlpa!ao ooA'non to lonOat mon he
would have dcnlod 1t, itwithout Foundation. you
will consider the infennces 10 10 drawn fsoru
aud any apparent oxruH ios hls silouce.
The rotnaiung class Of sv,donce Al 70 the
principal question In sue relateb TO tho conduct
Of tue defendant In Tho trat place. you. wl'
consider hls conduct in aia intercourse with Mrs.
| Triton. ~ proved by Joseph II. Richards and
Kata Carey. Tho circumstances stated by them
aro claimed to disclose
AN UNDuE FAMILIARITY.
| Your attention haA be,u eai!oa to , series 0,
| oyoutH, to tho reAAon which may have led K
certain modes OF actiouoS Roqutaaceucu, Of re-
s.raints, to occasional disturbances. apnre