Orleans County monitor. [volume] (Barton, Vt.) 1872-1953, 1875-05-10

ledge Nssfsoss
ask the privilege from yea for few
Eor3s in nv ewn behalf feel very
deeply the injustice Of my position II
the law and before the Court now sit
ting. and while I have understood and
expected from the beginning that Mr..
Evarts was principal in the matter. yee
since yoar decision | have been . seRsl-
BE Ct the power Of ay eneales that M
soul cries cut before y0a aud the gentle
nen Of the jury that they beware how
oy divided verdict they eonslgn 70 nv
Children q false and irrevecable STAIN
lpoa their mother. For ave years p2Ss
l have been the victim Of circumstances
most cruel and unfortunate; struggling
frem tine TO time only fora place TO live
and Faithfully. Released Tor
seme ueaths froa the viii ey whose
power uneonscioasly | eriUlnated NY
self. again AMI agzin. l declare solemn
" before you. without fear Of man and
with faith in God, / an innocent OF the
crimes charged against me- | would
like 20 tell nv whole sad story truthful
", to acknowledge the frequent false
hoods wrung from me BY eompulslon.
though at the same time unwilling % re-
veal the secrets Of nv married life.
which euly the vital Importance Of my
position makes necessary. | assume the
entire responsibility Of this request. IN
known TO friend or counsel ofeither side,
and await your Honer's henorable deeis-
ion With great respect.
ELIZABETH r. TILroN.
To this. Judge Nelson replied as fol-
lows
CHAXBEKz OF Crrr CoURT
OF BROOKLYN, n T..
BRookLYS. May I. 1875.
Hrs. 7TItoz.
1 an directed BY Chief Judge Nelson
to return your letter, as It cannot be
read IN Court; also. to state that in CIV
Il cases counsel have the right TO refrain
from ealing any particular witness.
however competent, and that neither
Court nor client can interfere with the
exercise Of that right The Judge also
instruets ne to say that the question
WhetherAyOu could be 4 witness stands
on quite other grounds from that eousid-
cred when your husband was called &C
testIfy. He was competent witness &c
testify against third person. the defen-
dznt. and while the policy Of the law
was 20 some extent involved there was
10 express statute IN the way; but the
statute Of May 10, 1867. expressly de,
elares the wife 20 be incompetent. as !
witness for or against the husband
Yours. with respect,
GEoRGE ". kNAEBEL.
Clerk Of City Court
WHY MRS TILToy WAS NOT CALLED As 4
WITNESS.
II answer TO ! question put BY tn
Eagle reporter. General Tracy said tia
the plaintiffs counsel would not adni
Mrs. Tlt0u until they saw the ease O
the defence rested He sand further
Even supposing they waived the stric
rules Of evidence. they could have moth
ing ID hope from the ofer to admit he
beyond the supposed effect Of the ofe
and It's refusal. and the Inconsistent %
sitiou IN which It would place the Dc
I fence Il that 0Fer were accepted b
see. Just moment. IN what posItio
calling Mrs T1t0u would put Us NJ
EEarts. on principle. opposed the intro
duction Of TTTtou's testimony. His Al
gument, beside the injustice and hard
ship Of calling him, when she, By Iag
could not testify, went to the subject
public policy, and the general eonserv.
ton Of good morals The law, origIna
/ y. very wisely said that husbands an
wives should not testify AGAINST eac
ether, As such permission tended to Il
destruction Of the marital relation al
Of society itself This objection W
overruIed and TTItou testified Nor
suppose We abandon this first Just az
strong position and call Mrs Tito
Notice particularly the faet. not lost
the VISION Of the prosecution that Nj
TIl50u could not testify without ressrii
tiau her testimony would be measure
and guarded BY the strictezt rules Of 9
idenee-
WHAT SHE Would BE ALLOWED To II
TVT-rEE LEGAL ASPECT.
: To nothing that ever took place
tween herself and husband, IN the PRIV
, ey Of the marital relation could she !
: one word That would be ruled cut
confidential and privileged between n
aud wife To what else couId she t
! tfyz Deny the alIegsd criminal n
q Macy Certainly she would deny
= But as against this, the ptoseeuti
: would De open 70 dIscrsiit her By mes
1 which suggest themselves 70 eTerybo.
e Has not Mrs Titan under the fnauer
h II her husband given utterznce to al
2 CATIONS As regards Mr. Beecher aud
e husband and herself, By means Of WI
L her assertions If Innocence taken per
n could De diseredIted2 Then, from
II strictly legal point Of view. IN v
/ would Mrs TIIt0u's e4ldeuee streagsI
L the case for the desencez Add 70 I
& the fact that, were Mrs TIIsan not
D present. n ezisseaee- We regard the c
! for the defence completely and irrefr
le I5ly made cur, and you vii EASILY
as dersraud Ehg We did not care 70 fail
le % the Vzag transparent snare sf