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


/ coupled with those charges, he believed tnat ne
had wronged the plaintln oy iavoIing AMY
4 separation and the dismissal by MIR. Bowen, and
for those reasons spoke, wrote, acted and suffered
as described.
II the wrong was the adultery the solution Of
1 what followed Is easy.
/ BEECHER's ESTIMATE or ms WRONG DOING.
I But. II the wrongs Offences actual or i'm
( puted. were OF tine other character stated then q
Just apprehension OF tue relation between the de-
iendanps state Of nina ana mis- conduct involves
several considerations. what was his personal
estimate of his relation 10 the Churcn, 10 the
worlL, TO literature and OF the reputation ne
should leave behind him what his conception VI
the nature and gravity Oh the charge o. impure
Solicitations, OF alternating a wonian's love irom
her husband and o. the eject oil such accusations,
II publicly maze what his lotion OF tue extent
to which Mr.. lItOn had been injured as a Journal
1T, I'D ms lamlly ana as 10 tneir means OF SUD-
The learned counsel claims that, upon the evil
dence, Mr.. Beecner had no occasion Tor grief, as
his advice that Mrs IIlton should separate rom
her husband was not followed, or as To Mr..
Bowen's acton, as that was NOT lnnaenceo ~
that view. But did the DEFENDANT, under mis-
apprehension. believe that ne had been lnstru-
mental IN INJECTING those Injuries upon the PLAIN
TN, and what, II any, enect Ead that upon his
conduct
them sucn consideration as you think they de-
serve.
| have now 10 call your attention 10 = question
wnicn, as have said, belongs exclusively TO you
namely, the credit due TO witnesses.
cREDIBlLITY OF WITNESSES.
The statements of witnesses are 10 be consid-
cred anu week he'd with q due regard 10 LheIr ID
uon TO tue case, as IN interest," TO the bias or pref
uaice they may nave In respect 70 the parties or
tue subject matter under investigation, TO con-
tradictons, previous tnconsistent state nts 10
their knowledge OF facts and the apparent dlspo-
sltion 10 make just and true disclosures and TO
their known or ascertalned characters
A poou degree vi respect ana confidence is due
to every citizen who has occasion speak under
oAta IN court VI justice as TO his own rights or
the rights OF others.
But u certain degree or nnrmity may and often
does attacn the memory may De defective, dates
e.
minded ana honest, contradict themselves ana
eacn other. ON trial some months ago re-
member TO have been much impressed by the
testimony of worthy man, the president OF an In
surance company, VINO, wnlle the case was still on
came back from the city OF New YORK TO acknoW-
ledge his error and make a correction. He was as
ia his rst as Ia his last affirm alton; there
such, Is the fruit OF a wicked intent. oil u wilful
perverslon OF known facts, TO work an injury TO
another. The legislation OF this State has borne
striking testimony 10 the virtue OF our people, In
allowing parties to be witnesses IN their own
behalf; even tue prisoner on trial for crime TO
testify TO his innocence.
But while believe that perjury is OF less com.
mon occurrence than IS imputed by The popular
view, IL Is a crime OF the gravest magnitude, Is
not qualified by tue special circumstances leading
TO It's perpetraton. He VINO, upon any mere
theory OF honor, would be guty o IL, might, II lie
had the temptation, commit any other crime. IL
has been SAID and upon high authority, that there
Is distinction between 4 mere 1alsenood ana a
he-tne former an untrue statement, maze without
guile and without knowledge OIL It's want OF truth,
the latter statement of what is known TO be false
and with intent 10 injure another. | am disposed
to respecI the distinction. SO, TOO, modern
dramatIsG mas said s.Ine truth always when IL rs
proper 70 be spoken - theory OF vaiae as appIied
to mere social intercourse. But good men nave
STOOD for the truth though IL cost their hives 50,
good men have uttered talsehoodS when only tneir
own interests were concerned. Walter Scott, RS
long he thought proper. denied that he was
the other OF the WdVerley Novels; IL was his
secret.
1t is the duty or a Jury, when Witnesses contra
dict each other, TO seek TO reconcile the conflict
Ing statements, TO make allowances Tor honest
relue.antly ana IRON necessity All testlmony as
i Rave lntinlated, Is at the risk OF imperfect
knowledge and Imperfect memory. Witnesses,
VINO appear equally entitled 10 credit, may give
different accounts OF the same tran sactlon; the
difference gong to the substance and enecL or
only III the immaterlal details. In sucn cases you
have substantial identity with clrcumstantial va
rIety. TOO much importance should not De at
tubuted 10 such differences, TO the discredit OF
witnesses. You may believe that they intended
tell the trutn, unless the contrary Is reasonably
clear ami, as lar as you can, seek TO harmonic
their testimony and discover the substantial
MoULToS's CONTRADICTIONS
Ii Is proper TO refer, In less general terms, 10
one or two Witnesses MI Moulton seems have
interviewed as the open and avowed friend OF Nj.
1liton. He appears To have Undertaken 10 medl-
ate between the parties, To reconcile them, and,
lar possible, to prevent the speelhc cnarac-
ter OF their differences from obtaining publicity.
lie states that sucn was the real pur pose and
character OF his Intervention, and the defendant,
AZ ana ~ gsns9ons at testimony TO that erect.
Yet Mr.. Mouiton on various occasions, rs
he himself tesnss ana as oiner r. Wit VIZ,
guilty OF the sexual intercourse which lie now
says had been admitted IL Is for you TO consider
how lar Inc Inconsistency IN his statements goes
to diseredit him. II you shall DC OF opinion that
he intended TO state the truth In his examination
here and that his previous declarations were IN
spred by a spirit ofloyalty 10 tue defendanrare-
puIation, and TO that or Mrs. Illton, and nom an
earnest VISA 10 divert the minds OF others from
the subject, IN carrying out the polcY OF sup.
preston adopted, you are at liberty TO make
sucn allowance for that as shall seem proper.
7ILToNiS PECULIAR STATEMENTS.
As TO MIR. Hilton, you Will conslaer whether his
testimony 70 tue confession OF the deienu4nps
lions that his wife was innocent. The peculiar
theory which he has explained 70 you has been
sufficiently illustrated BY counsel and may be ac-
cepted IS lar as you thinK proper. IL his purpose
10 protect the fame OF his wife and lot 70 njurs
nlcts and emotions which may nave possessed
him-yOu discover a moral purpose ss contrasted
with q depreved spirit you viii give him the ben
me general rule as to persons VINO nave viii
fully testified, under oath, to what Is false, on any
material point, Is that their testimony 10 dis
credited You are not bound 70 disregardit al. The
Witness TO be entirely dIscredited. must nave
given the false testimony with reference 70 q Tact
as 70 which he could not be presumed liable to
mistake, and given IL with knowledge thatl was
false You are 20 Apply the rule cautiously and
discreety. Tue maxim, wifulY false ia one thing,
false ALL Is sound, subject 10 the caution stated
ana to your rgnt 10 decide how mucn credit you
Is MRS MouLroS DIscREDrEDf
the testimony OF Emma q. MOuiton Is sought to
claimed that there is an Inherent imprODability
In the supposttOn that lady Of her confessed re-
nnement ana deicacy would have conversed so
freely with the defendant as 10 mis- adultery, or
undertaken TO ADVISE him on that SUBJECT. IL
is also SAID that on the occasion wnen
she claims 10 have had an important In
tervew with the defendant ne was not
at her house. You Will consider and apply the
proof which stands In conflict and IN cor roDora-
tIon In the discussions that proof has been re-
cited aud illustrated so Freely mat nave but TO
commend 1t 10 your careful considera tion. Did
she. at about TIE time stated, nave that inter
view, and WIS the conversation SUBSTANTIALLY as
gwen BY herf II 80, and she were IN error as TO
the length OF the interview, that mere incident
would not be conclusive. The question, gentle
men. rests with you.
Two otaer observations may be proper. Had
Mrs. Moulton got the Impression that the defend
ants quit was adultery and IN Der Conversation
regarded that as the subject IN MS mind a. II was
n ner mindY DO you believe that, whether mis-
taken or not, she testified honestlyf Her manner
the stand and the opinion which the defendant
himself had or her moral character and WORTH -
stated IN letters, commend ner 70 your respect.
snE - SUSTAINING HER HUSBANDS TESTIMONY.
/ DAD OCCASION 70 state Ia your nearing my view
oF he stl