New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-16

,umcrous to be shaken at this time Of day by any CON
sdsraous of hardship howcver justly ureedl certainly
h.. Overlooked the and aPPeS a snS sn0 an
authority OF no mean consideration, In matters OF prac
tce In this court very reluctantly II at ALL submits 70
the consideration aud appears to hold OUT that the
court aftcr all ccumspccticn used Is satsneo oi 'e
sincerity Of the confession. odght to rest upon as
proof In tho prescnt the sincerity can b. no matter
Of question No motive OF desire ddroiae al cI.ercs
very time; and what Is she attempting bu, 10 re-
establish her rights In this very marriaget However, u
ia not necessary pursue the matter further upon tns
ohieotion for The party this ease, does not rest his
demand upon confession alone
Now your Honor will perceive that under the rules OF
the canon law established for tie government OF the
courts Of England In matters ~ this character confess
son alone according least to the carly canons and
their construction would not Justify an absolute divorce
unless accompanied by circumstances or more OF loss
dorec OF ncupa,ion But In England, IN the prac-
ce Of tho court appears Think by the in'imauon Oh
this opinion it Is the modern rule 10 disregard that
canon and where appears that tie confession s WIFI
ont any co,uson between the parties free from all SUE
pcon of fraud copryance for the court to rely upon
confession alone as will show your Honor more fully
In the case II Burgess ag Burgess, in "a Hageafas
Consistory Reports, $40. the same Judge Sir "inia
Scott after commenting upon the evidence, says;
In considering the legal effect Of this .vience mus,
procccd established doctrine of this Court a.
has laid wn in various cases thsi IL ~ no, 90
sary 10 prove tho fact OF adultery AT any Hn ~
place. Bodc 81 forma toco ct ie'oIe II VIII ne @ ,.n
X the Court infer that conciusion as u mas oitc
not in the same bed. or in any cqr'ocai sit.on
Imny perhaps properly remark here that Mr. Evarts
has endesyorcd 10 apply TO this case the rue ies"s
the force and power of cir,umstanal evidence as oc
mcnstraied and applied in criminal cases SUBMIT W
your Honor that Il is error lie INSISTS tha' where
crcumstspcc, OF suspicion, containing possible impi-
cation Of guilt do not necessarily lead TO that result
they may answered upon the hypothesis OF hnocehce'
why then they Of effect. Such is not the rue ap
Piled n. your Honor will perceive think in The divorce
ocurt
win NO ,uaocnt IL the Cont can in.cr that eoncu-
.an as IL has often done between persons living In the
aamo house. though not seen III inc sabe peu VI ~
ANY eouvocal situation To prevent however the posi-
Colrt viii always travel to this conclusion win evef
necessary caution while. the other hand II wii DC
careful nat 10 suffer the object of the law 10 be elnded by
any combining Of parties TO Keep WITHOUT e oaSn ,s.
dircc and positive proof. IT. then, proof Of specinc
sCt ia not necessary il equally unnecessary tat con-
fesson II confession there he, should appy 10 i,
apply TO all times and places which might appear
probable proof that the fact might have taken place
Another principle Is equally clear, mat CONFESSION
Alone ca,.uct b. receivcd-so says the canon Canon
io5for without ih,s resri,"m ,1rS tt be
practioed upon the Court. Here. however there IL 10
eucb danger The suit commenced III IN" hist Instance
Tor restitution of conurs rights aud the comic
are strongly opposed to such clause lhey aPpe.'i
confessions rung from heart agas ts ln',u'.v' an
though will not say that they gre not WAN ,ac ss s
era rule. they do not fall withn nc i 800
Of It. Under this observation shaii poceeu ~ eoh''
che evidence ~ TO adultery.
Now, your Honor will perceive that the RUE OF uio
canon excluding confessions is sufficient as IL was aetef
mined justify decree as founded upon TIE SUSPICION
of possible connvancc. collision, es between huspaha
and vito and that where tie Of the rule does not
apply the Court with hesitation intimate tha' inc
rule itself would not give the degree OF cTcdioiity ana
force which the Court would extend 20 confcssion and
YOU win see think Sir how the tendency Oh INC courts
has progressed in that direction
refer also H. the Gaze Of Billings Ggt Blings In IL
Pickering, 4Oi. The syllabus of the caso -;
Ton Of uanl t(r
creed where the only evidence OF the CRIME was e con
fession OF the guilty party there being no reason TO sn
pcct oolusion
Martin j. before whom the trial took place, sad he
had advised the other uds, tho question whether
the oliecs confessions OF adultery were alone sufficient
70 authorize the decree Of divorce aud then proceeds TO
say:
That the reoso for nelinqushipg other evidence In
general TO prevent collision; that the circumstances
bore proved by other evidence than the confessions IS;
sbowed that there could be cOsCn; and tha All inc
Court Of the opinion that The proof o. he ao'eiy
vas sufficient
Irefer your Honor also and my friends to the Of
Loyeion agt Iovedon. I'd Hagglrd. page l. But, Sir,
have not the particular paragraph marked to which
wish TO draw your H0nors attention. and must there
fore, omit IT,
Tread. Sir from the Of Bramwe agt. Bramwell,
IN Sd Haggard page 6ls short paragraph Tor tho pur
POGO Of showing that where an attachment exists
properly called suppose, criminal attachment Where
Il exists tween parties who have no right to Indulge
where an attachment exists and there are clear and
frequent opportunities for its qualification, that the
Court wii from those circumstances Alone infer that
che desired appetite has been INDUCED
It's then in evidence that not merely was There Grim
ina attachment but also that thiS attachment was not
rejected That Jery admitted i5
his correspondence opportunities were CONSTANT
and there nothing to show Oh her part ftssthce nor
repdaton thai SHE at al dscountenanced his pas
sion TO doubt from such circumstances that the con
summation followed would lie ~ rrcs,,9 that erect was
consequent the natural cause and that ths was
case of extraordinary exception and singular Innocence
approaching near Mr.. Evaits; idea OF iniracle
tho res of eyidonce aud entertain no reason
able doubt tbat adultery had been committed
Irefcr now TO the OF Burgess agt Burgess In
I'd HaggaId page 534:
with refcr,ce the confessions, they have been de-
scrbed as for persons circumstance as
Mrs burgess was from one extreme To another
that after strongly denying guilt at one time yet AFTER
ward feeling conscious OF some little impioprees, they,
In an agony of repentance would confess more than was
true This ia hypothesis TO which the court cannot
sccee being contrary to Its experience mot per-
sonal cxporiencOl which has generally found persons
orcne to extenua.e their faults. and willing, Always 10
might be due them. Again. ii has been said that the
confessions made under promises 81 forgiveness
and hope OF inducing Mr. Burgess by her repent.
her again but az tins there s no proof
whatever for though husband continued to live with
till the 9TH Of January, II was not tl that Tune tiat
he had proof Of her actual guilt when ne had her COMES
son aud that Of Mr. Lane; and man cannot act on mere
uspioOn as he would on fdL proof &c.
Judge Nelson ito Mr Beaohl will hear you further
after the iBtormission.
Mr. Beach Very wen, Sir: will endoavor TO get these
authorities in little better shape by that time.
The Court here took d recess until i. IN.
THE AFTERNOON SESSION.
The Court met at z, pursuant to adjourn