Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-06-25

whether his testimony to a confession OF
defendants guilt can be recOnciled with
his previous declarations that his wife was
innocent. The peculiar theory which he
has explained to you has been illustrated
by counsel and may be accepted as far as
you think proper.
As to thstesrimOny Of Emma q. AOultOn
| it is claimed there is an inherent improba-
i bility in the suppOsition that lady OF her
confessed refinement and delicacy would
have couversed 80 freely with defendant as
/ to his adultery on undertaken to advise him
on that subject. 1t is also said that on the
| occasion when she claims TO have had anim-
por.ant interview with The descendant he was
not at her house. You viii consider and
apply the proof which stands in conflict and
| in eorrobOration. In the discussions that
proof has been recited and illustrated so
/ freely that 1 have bat to commend it to
your careful consideration. Did she, at or
about the time stated, have that inter-
/ view and was the conversation
substantially as given by her? If so, and
she was in error as to the length Of the in
terVieW, that one incident would not be
conclusive. The question, gentlemen, rests
with you. Another observation may be
proper. Had Mrs. MOultOn got the i'm
preston that defendants guilt was adul-
tery, and her conversation regarded that as
the subject in his mind, as it was IN her
! mind, do you believe that, whether mis-
taken or not, she testified honestly? Her
manner on the stand, and the opinion which
| the defendant himself had of her moral
character, as stated in his letters, commend
her to your respect.
l had occasion to state in your hearing
my view Of a suggestion that this witness
testified at the will or instruction Of her
| husband. l hold to the opinion then ex-
pressed, that there is 10 proof Of artitice or
| coercion or undue influence. The fact,
however, that her husband is deeply con-
| cerned in this controversy, and that her
testimony, without repeating, coneurs with
his, is to be considered on the mere ques-
tion Of bias. In sustaining PLAINTIFF cause,
she is sustaining her husband as a witness.
As To the Witnes, Kate Carey,it is proper to
state that persons called to prove an alleged
bad character for truth and Yeracity, should
have a general knowledge, to be fairly de-
rived from the opinions expressed by people
who knew witness. Such impeachment is
weak in proportion as the circle in which
an unfavorable opinion prevails is narrow,
and as that opinion can be traced TO special
difficulties.
Tracey's Conduct.
As to another witness, Benjamin F.
Tracey, two suggestions have been made:
The 6rst that, having acled as counsel for
the defendant, he should not have been
called as a witness for him in the case; the
second, that owing 10 an arrangement with
promise to the plaintiff, he should not
have acted as sucA counsel. The Judge
commented at length npOn Tracey's case,
and said: l have only to add that my own
view Of the prOprietY Of the course pursued
by Mr.. Tracey agrees with that Of his
associate counsel in the cause. think
with them that there has been no violation
Of duty on his part, personal or professional
The QuesfiOn Of Damages
was next eonsidered, the Judge calling the
attention Of the jury to the large amount OF
evidence, including the plaintiffs alleged
misconduct at home and abroad, peculiar
to this mere question Of damages. Such
misconduct, said the Judge, may reduce
the amount Of recovery, but is nc defense
to the action.
Some other features Of the case remain to
be noticed upon principle and authority,
and also with reference to our accepted
rules of social order. The intimacy and
intercourse which is allowed between a
married woman and her legal adviser, ply
sician or pastor, is greater than that which
would be considered proper or becoming
between a woman and man holding no
such special relation. The principle is here
and the defendant Is entitled TO the benefit
Of il. -a
We are wont to say that all suitOrs are
treated alike, and in most respects they are;
but vet, in a case Of this character, man
grown old in proper and piOus service, has
prima facie the benefit Of a presumption
which the mere man Of the world has not.
MI, Beeeher's Advances Of Money,
which, through Mr.. MOultOn, went 70 the
benefit OF TiltOn and family, appear to
have been mere acts Of generosity. That
money was not eXtOTted by MOultOn, nOl
does it appear to have been the fruit Of any
improper artifice. Although it IS Of nC
f special moment, think it proper to say the
uncontradIcted evidence shows that TiltOI
did not know that he was thus benefited
! by Beecher We have before us no evi
dence which could support the charges o
conspiracy and blaekmail; and If we had,
the defendants position would remain the
= sane-if innocent; TO be so declared lnde
pendently Of such articles. The neares
approach to blackmail would seem to have
arisen between TiltOn and
Bowen,
if the former did threaten to publish I
! card injurious to the latter unless the
/ money was paid. But we have no interest
in that question. Moreover he did nO
publish the card nor was he paid unit
after due course Of investigation. Il
seems that the covenant Of Bowen anC
: Tnton in respect to compensation for ser
vice on the two papers provided for certain
payments on a termination of employment
: before the end of the term and tha
claims or disputes should be determined
D by arbitration. In the notices of dismissa
2 put in evidence, Mr.. Bower proposed tha
| mole Of adjustment. He had legal Tigh
I to stand On that. He did so and the arbi.
| tratiOn was had. The gentlemen acting a
: arbitratOrs, men Of character and integrity
| found that 5000 was due and that wa:
: paid. No special purpose could have led
E such men TO that determination If thu
money had not, in their judgment, beeDlac
; tually due.
The Church Investigation and Westi
:, Charges.
It seems proper to refer to two subject
{ Of considerable importance, which, to SOM
o extent, have been brought into the case
7 The one is the proceedings and report o
b the Investigating Committee appointed b,
4 Mr.. Beecher after defendants letter to DI
: Bacon had been published. That was
= matter which concerned Plymouth Churc
Y and the defendant as lis pastor. The re
d port Of the committee, after such inyesti
g cation as they thought proper, was in fayo
d of the defendant. have simply to Teminl
: You that that determination should have n
= weight or influence with you.
e The other subject is the advisory cOnven
# | tion held at the instance Of two of ou
J. principal churches. The question present
l. ed here had no relation to the subject ther
e involved, the West charges which are j
a evidence before you not having been pros
IS ecuted by the Plymouth Church, and Mr
f TiltOn's name having been dropped as
Df member without censure, nOtWithstandin
y the charge Of slandeTing the pastor ha
IS been made by Mr.. West. The advisor
If council had c0gniZance of that as aqueStio
L Of discipline and church pOlity. You vii
s readily perceive that the proceeding di
not affect or assume 70 reach Mr.. BeecheI
You are not to accept the notion that thOs
y two powerful churches were pursuing Nj
s Beecher. Isimply call your attention
. this subject that the defendant may no
? suffer from any miscOnception as to th
f ground on which that council was col