Yankton daily press and Dakotaian. (Yankton, Dakota Territory [S.D.]) 1875-1875, 1875-06-24

the case combined. In taking up the
wrongs referred to, you will
observe Z that plaintiffs letter
of the 2eth Of December, 1870, to
Beccher, demanding thatSthe defend
ant should leave his pulpit and the
city, was the first open act Of hostil-
ity. That demand was withdrawn at
an interview had by the parties at
Moulton's house on the evening OF
December. Both. Plaintiff claims that
all this was done in Difference to the
wishes Of his wife. The paper writ
ten by Mrs. Tilton in respect to
her relations to defendant was then
alluded to.
The next paper i'll order is that OF
January 1st, 1871, in Moulton's writ.
ing, and at the bottom the signature
is written by Beecher Aeuestion! Of
faith in dispute as to this paper de-
mands your attention. Moulton says
it was dictated, sentence by sentence,
and read over. Beccher denies the
dictation and reading. As to the de-
gree Of credit to which these witnes.
ses, thus conflicting, may be relative
ly entitled, you are TO remember they
spoke Of what occurred. at time Of
great excitement. They may have
been equally affected, but while one
was pouring out his thoughts in an
others behalf, the other may well
have been moved in sympathy.
Throughout all this did defendant act
as he would have acted if innocent?
recur to the letter of -the-26th OF
December, delivered by Bowen, in
which plaintiff said to defendant: 81
demand that, for reasons that you ex-
plicitly understand, you Immediately
cease from the ministry of Plymouth
church, and that you quit the city,"
The question is as to the manner in
which this demand was received.
The plaintiff there seems to have the
point that as the offence charged in this
complaint had been generally referred
to, it would be apprehended on read
ing the letter. The defendant said:
"This man is crazy" It is for you
to consider whether that remark was
or was not in the nature Of sugges-
ton that there was no sensible reason
for making that demand, and whether
in conversation or in tone or manner
the defendant betrayed any conscious
ness Of guilt.
However, all men would not act
alike under the same circumstances,
and what the jury might ascribe to
guilt might be mere caution. The
testimony Of plaintiff and Mr.. and
Mrs. Moulton is as two forms of ad-
mission, one or all other tests arc i'm
piled. In considering these portions
of that testimony which related to de,
fendant's actual admission of guilt
you will recall the statements, and
from the effect that reasonable doubt
rs to want of apprehension or mem.
ory, in that witness in providing sucl
admissions impressed the jury to ex
ercise great caution.
1t was the duty Of the jury to de
eide in view of this conflicting evi
dence, and also as to Beecher's con
duct, whether it implied guilt il
the first place, you are to consider hi
conduct. His interest with Mrs. Til
ton, as testified by Joseph H. Rich
ards and Kate Cary, the parties stat
ed by them, are claimed to disclos.
undue familiarity. Your attention
has been called to some of the reason.
which. may have led to this action
Such . charge is not usually proved
or indeed probable, by positive evi
dence. The reverse is obvious ii
most instances, where under socia
restraints an apparent proper intima
cy degenerates into licentious acts
The intent and object is to put OF. .th'
garb Of innocence, even in such cases
To alt cases of doubt and difficulty
the law Of evidence, searching and in
flexible, applies the proper teet-pre
sumption and inference drawr
from conduct according I,
the dictates of reason
You are also to deide what the~eyi