The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-25

whether the defendant was conscious OF Deing
thus charged, whether that lea 70 MS emollon.
sorrow, trouble ana tending 10 lead him 10 the ex-
pressions verbal or written, when you may nno
he made.
the apology Or letter Of contrition xnbit No y does
not lace import any act OF adultery sexual in
delieacy, and i no proof Of either
That Is 50. II is proper only to ascertain what
1t does refer TO IN connection with the clrcum-
stances.
None the defendants letters and writings put in EVIL
denee upon .her face as matter O law import adultery
themselves. The fact Of either must be supplied by
other legitimate proof before the law allows the inter-
that such fact prompted the expressions oil the
letters aud writings
have put that to you, gentlemen, in the charge
as question OF fact. Those letters like the paper
called the letter OF contriton, do not specify the
act or wrong. real or supposed the parties had In
view. IL makes but a matter or TACT 10 you.
None of the defendants letters or writings put In
SsS ony asf of the e Of the a
iendant Of ana a. tne
appreciation and detailed by himself
Certainly not, they only declare or express the
emotions OF the defendant OF commiseratlon ana
selfreproacn at the broken fortunes OF the plain
thu, and the domestic unhappness OF MS family
as detailed by himself They only declare or ex-
press the emotions OF the defendant, and Il Is Tor
you TO say what those emotions meant, ana Dy
what they were excited or extorted.
The jury find that the P all % as e
conduct and with view to separating from him. and
that the defendant n December $50 gave inorman95n
ana to the psiatls employsr ana advised sepsr e.
Considered BY The Jury as corro6oratng deendanpa
testimony ana discrsditing that Of the plaintiff the
main issue.
have said to you In effect mat those facts must
be considered by you IA interpreting, ana as YOU
defendants declarations, or illustrating or inter-
preLng what he may have SAID. Tnat IS all \
tank that ought TO say. IL Is matter ior you
to consider
xLyI-The fact that plaintiff continued to cohabiA
OF the Charge and up f 70 july lsG IS coseSt evidence
against the truth OF the present charge.
oil tfndf IN ri n ~
stion. and IN actions OF divorce on account OF
adultery where the wife is . plaintiff or defendant
proposition Is covered ills sound rule. The fAct
That plainIn who Is alterward the plaintln In an
action seeking divorce continued to cohaoie
with his wife after or long after ner guilt had
been communicated TO him, Is proper matter,
peculiar 10 such an action. because III that actlon
the husband may be charged with having con-
doned his wiie's offence, and bee use also. the
man who finally comes into court seeking divorce
Is the same man whose conduct after living with
his vile alter his knowledge OF her guilt. lnvolve
an 1ncongrulty. The same spirit that leauS MIN
10 prove mis- action Tor divorce. would lead him
TO a separation from his wlie as soon as ne
learned her guilt. But IN this actlon 10 docs not
ever.
XLvGI. The silence OF the plaintiff toward the de-
possession OF the fact that adultery had been commit
charge.
Upon the mere face OF this proposition that
into consideration, al you should, the question
whether, upon the confession Of that by his wife,
III She dld confess, or taxing into view the cOu'
duct OF the plaintIn, the assumption that ne
had the confession, did tue wife influence him "a
silence ana peace, and aid ne yield 10 that lndu.
ence and does that account for the circumstances
tnat not until so long after the supposed and al
legged confession, dld ne ne make any dstlnet,ye
ana think that you ought TO look at 1t IN tna
light, either to accept or reject the suggestion.
disclosed any ehase as&n e t' o % s
emPoyer IN @ @ WIN
Brookiyn and that ne made no OF tne cnarge
denee asainst the truth Of the present charge. i,
learning that il was retracted by wife planR
reeonciled with the deenant ana restored the
evidence AGAINST the trntn q the present charge
open adultery against dcfendant and me
aDs sA S IN S
causes eogent evidence against the ruhiuness and
AS each OF those propositions. gentlemen, are
questions OF fact Tor you to consider, and accord
ing us you NAV interpret the acts ana conduct OF
the party the evidence viii be more or less
strong, II being, IN large degree, circumstantlM
fireIy. i am indsposed to speak OF the evidence
OF what you may draw or not draw az being
sS 10 the motives which led the plaintiff to frsi
disclose the TACT TO Mr.. Bowen, II he did do So
led MIN to remain In association win nls vile
the defendant and led him TO whatever character.
tied his conduct and course In any degree.
Va w oe S 0a ana IKE e.hGan dsc S aT
ana me deiendsnt puts IN evidence written statement
mo N after whether was before the action was
conclusively discredited.
Wen, that Ia true as properly applied. III
bring an action against on claim resting Ia
parole, claim for work and labor or money lent
on the trial to the fact ina: the Defendant was
indebted ana denies that ne has been paid, and
the deiendant prod uces a letter written Dy him
stating that the claim had been settled ana paid,
that would be conclusive OF course In connection
win deiendantis denial rnat Is the application
or that proposition. l have explained 10 you
already how you should consider the previous
inconsistent decorations you mar nnd TO nave
been made by plainun, whether before the action
was commenced or afLerward, cnaracteriLng the
think IL Is matter OF TACT for you.
LII The uneQuivocal admissions Of the plaintiff him
ssiand q M Monlton that they have AND
present charge 10 manner wholly inconsistent with tue
snd Mrs riIioas dsereds thsir tssaoaj
he ia jury as Wholly untfustworthy
explained to you, gentlemen. the theory OF
duty tnat supposed you would respect ia that re.
ali, MT. Moulton'A previous contradictory state
ments could be ascrIoed, and an honorable pur
iendant and protect Elizabeth ana the same sug
gestion applies TO Mr.. Tilton. You are at liberty
10 consider the motive aud should consider the
motive which led them 10 do one thing OF tue
other, and whether they did 80 honestly or dis
honestly and then determine the enect either IN
large or less degree or no degree.
LII II the jury beleye that the plaintiff any other
- soas sreaars tSe whoS ssnony u anh
witness
have stated the rule on that subject. That Is
the general rule. but - not imperative where am
part oI the testimony thus affected Is corrOborated
LIv. When a witness testines conversation u the
defendant which other person present there
means 81 DIRECT contradiction except BY The oath
Of the defendant If the jury ind train " circum.
Inconsistent with the alleged conversation and
the Il fully denied BY the defendant they
may reject the testimony 70 such alleged conversauon
Certainly you may, because the whole matter
belongs 10 YOU, and Is one OF tue Circumstances
that should on your part procure patient attsn
ton. Gentlemen, are you cont6ntG
Mr.. Beach-We are, sir.
luaQe Neilson-Ar. Spauiding, which are the
offlcers2
The ClerK-Ofncsrs Doyle Spaulding ana Clare.
Judge Nelson Step forward. II you please.
Juryman Davis-Your Honor, may we nave the
original documents and papers to take with us 70
toe jury room
Judge Nelson-rhat Is a matter for the counsel
to consider. 1t Is not usual Tor the Jury TO taKe
out any papers, and the question rests entirely
with the counsel