Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-06-25

~ affected, but while the one was pour
ing out his thoughts in sgony Of self
depreciation, the other may well have
been moved in sympathy. The law has
I tender consideration for an infirmity OF
4 memory thus Inherited. A witness is not
I expected TO speak OF events with GER
/ tainty, As 20 the subject thus spoken Of
by thO7e witnesses you should be pTU-
dent. Iu reference 30 mere probabilities
you are not to indulge in speculations,
( or lightly consider a matter which has
/ bseu affirmed, because it may not seem
! reasonable. TIE judge said that the
/ reference by him TO the other papers
! would he merely unnecessary, but from
! them * appears that the defendant was
! conscious Of having committed some
wrong or offense against the plaintiff
/ and bis family. With that observation
as to the import Of the papers, l
/ submit them to your consideration, that
/ you may, taking them in con-
! nectiOn with proofs at large,
! determine what that wrong or offense
/ was. Passing to the second branch of
| evidence as the principal charge in the
order stated, 1 call your attention to
! the alleged oral admissions; the cOnfes-
| sions OF q party made directly against
/ his own interests as to facts known and
understood by him, and if clearly
! proved, must be regarded as a high class
! Of evidence, and deservedly so, because
| it is contrary to experience for men to
/ admit what hurts them if not true. Ex-
! perience proves rather that men evsde
/ or deny the truth when the truth hurts
| them. Testimony to prove oral admis-
| sion should be carefully scrutiniZed.
! The jury should be satisfied the witness
clearly understood, correctly remem-
bered and fairly repeated what was said;
but caution against relying on such tes-
! timony too implicitly should find its
counterpoise in the caution against too
ready q rejection of it. The third class
Of evidence in the arraignment is as to
UGcit or implied admission. In theory
it appeals to a principle peculiar to pre-
sumptive evidence. 1t is presumed that
on suitable occasions most men have
such regard for their own interests that
being upjustly charged or maligned they
will speak out in denial or Justification,
hence ii is that silence may often be re-
gaTded as confession. The most obvi-
Gus difficulty in applying this doctrine
arises from the consideration that all
men may not act alike in the same
circumstances, and that the jury may
possibly ascribe TO a sense Of guilt what
really was due to mere surprise, or to
some uDk Gown restraint. The testimony
of plaintiff and of Mr.. and Mrs. Moul.
ton is Us to two forms OF admission, the
one oral and the other implied. In
considering the portions OF that testi-
mony which relate to defendants actual
admission of guilt, you will recall doc
trine stated under former head, TO the
effect that q reasonable doubt as to the
want of apprehension, or OF memory, or
Of fairness in the witness, proving such
admissions, impose upon the jury the
exercise OF great caution. Upon the tes-
timODy you will inquire whether the
witnesses are correct in their statements,
or whether the defendant was misundeT-
stood by them, In considering the 9TH
er portions of their testimony as to the
implied admissions, also cOntradicted
by the defendant, you should inquire
whether, in the conversations had by
him with the witnesses, his adultery
with the plaintiffs wife was spoken of
in clear and express terms. If you find
that he was thus charged, 80 that acting
on the impulse common to innocent
men, he would have denied it If without
foundation, you will consider the infer
ence to be drawn from any apparent ex-
cuse for silence. The remaining class Of
evidence rs to the principal question in
issue, relates to the conduct of the
defendant. In the first place you will
consider his conduct in his intercourse
with Mrs. IiltOn as proved by Joseph II.
Richards and Kate Carey; the circum-
stances stated by them are claimed to
disclose an undue familiarity. Your at
tentiOn has been called to series of
events as to the reasons which may have
led to certain modes Of action, of &C
quiescence, Of restraints, to occasional
disturbances, appTehensions and resent
mentsl lapsiDg into seasons of peace and
patient endurance. The counsel have
given you their views as TO the signifi-
canoe Of each fact and circumstances.
But in and through it all, the vital and
absorbing question remains, not whether
the defendant acted wisely and well, but
as he would not have acted if innocent
of this particular charge. recur to the
Letter of the twenty-siXth of December,
delivered by Bowen, in which the plain
tiff said to the defendant: 81 demand
that, for reasons that you explicitly IN
deTstand, you Immediately cease from
the ministry of Plymouth church, and
that you quit the City Of Brooklyn as to
residence The question is as to the
manner in which this demand was read.
The plaintiffs theorism seems to have
been that as the offense charged in this
complaint had been perpstuated, the
reasons thus generally referred to would
be apprehended on reading the letter
The defendant said: "This man is craZy.u
Ii is for you 10 consider whether that re-
mark was or was not in the nature Ofthe
suggestion, that there was no sensible
reasons for milking that demand; and
whether in conversation or in tone and
manner the defendant betrayed any con-
seriousness Of guilt.
The judge next referred to the policy
of silence, and said that Mr.. Beecher's
course throughout was to be carefully
scrutinized. You will inquire whether at
tebtions were paid to Mrs. Woodruff to
conciliate her, at the instance or with
the appreciation of defendant; whether
before Miss Turner was sent off to school
he favored that as precautionary meas
ure or contributed money in that view;
and whether he depressed the presenta. |
ton and prosecution of the West charges. !
II you find that Mr.. Beecher did not !
thus act, those questions will not trouble |
you; but il you find that he took such |
part in those transactions, or any of |
them, then you will inquire whether he |
did go in apprehension that his sexual |
intercourse with Mrs. Tilton might be |
exposed, or from some other and indie.
pendent cause. You will also inquire
whether the defendant RETAINED from |
publishing denial or Tefutation Of the |
allegations contained in the paper |
known as the Woodruff scandal, from |
answering the particular inquiry made |
by Mrs. Bradshaw in her letter, to which |
he sent a reply, or was held in bond
age of fear to Mrs. Morse from a sense Of |
guilt now charged. In any view of the |
case you msy be disposed to ask why |
Mr.. Beecher, if innocent, should have |
gsTnered up in his heart all of that pain /
and fear so long when he might have |
made his proclamation to the world and |
trampled out the scandal as with |
iron boots? The question upon all the |
proof is whether defendant understood !
that he was charged with adultery, and !
spoke, wrote, acted and suffered from |
and in consequence Of that, or whether, |
laying that out Of view, he understood 1
the charges to he that be had made i'm |
proper proposals or advances, and had |
robbed the plaintiff OF a rich inherit |
anoe ia the love Of his wife, and wheth- |
er, coupled with these charges, he be- |
lieVed that he bad wrOnged the plaintiff |
by fsvOring family separation and dis /.
missal by Bowen, and for those reasons |
wrote, acted and suffered as described. /.
II the wrong was adultery, the dissOlu- |
ton Of what followed is easy; but if the |