New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-28
JOSEPH RICHARDSs TESTIMONY.

Now, the value of Mr. Richards's evidcnce-isit
anythng aud OF all circumstani evidence when pro-
duced by witness TO produce upon yor the impression
that would have produced If you had the thing
he speaks Of Now, there two ways to find out what
impression that would have upon YOU One is the state
men Of what the thing that he saw and second the
impression that made upon him when lie saw it, and as
no saw it. Well he makes the most unlucky prelude for
the great circunstantial evidence on which this
case, SO far proof OF the act B to
turn Is that ho begins by apologizing to the
court and tie jury part OF the court before he would
tell what III saw that no regrets to say that unless no Is
suffered first tell what he heard from other people
about other matters what he will prove to be OF no
consequence. Well that is very strange thing never
heard OF any Witnesses ought to come FREQ
from bias What under heaven have they to do with
what the impression Of their testimony was or should be
They are called state what they did Sec The law don't
allow anybody to state what they heard, and the
poor man says, "Well. now, am here and sup
pose therefore, I am hero for something, and
really shall make fool of myself for coming here to
say nothing unless allowed to state the circum-
stances that made think there might be something In
it." Well we will dispense with that. Now that Is the
first test out OF his mouth Of what impression and
weight and power there evidence In what he saw,
and that is that there not any. don't think you
need trouble Yourselves ruc about what he saw, when
he tells you there nothing in 1t to begin with. Well
then lie goes on and tells ii, and don't know exactly
phrase but no Dr. Beecher as he suddenly opened
the paror door, Mrs. Tlton and Mr. Beecher were
conversing Richards knowing nothing OF 1t, except
perhaps he had been told they were down
there-he saw his sister Withdrawing from what think
is called proximity to Mr Beechcr-Inoving away from
him. and that she colored little. Well don't think
that that comes up to the rule that 1t must DO an act
that only points 10 adultorous connection, but is in
consistent with anything else 1t does not strike me So
How did it strike Richards TO went in and kissed his
J.Ia ot,b onJ- v,itb Mr. ohar
and talked with him. then went on about his business
Now In either way that it evidence OF an adultery
that had taken place. OF adultery that was going on
toward its contamination then and there, you Will very
easily see that whatever had happened did happen
IL didn't make much OF an impression on RiclardA Tor
shook hands with the man and saluted his sister, and
then went about his business and shut the door or left 1t
ope-I don't know that he which he did-and never
thought Il worth while to mention the circumstance to
his sister his only sister, he her only brother and their
mother widow.
Well gentlemen as said about tho oflcnsc there Is
generalization of such conduct Of Richards enables mo
to apply an adjective 10 It, 1t never happened before
don't thuS that after his example 1t will ever happen
again. read from the Of Freeman a Freeman IN
the 3Ist OF Wisconsin, page 246 where the rules Of all
these matters Of crcunstantal evidence are laid down.
Speaking OF circumstautal evidence, the Court says
All the circumstances arc fairly and fully explained
and Shown TO have been incident to some other object or
design and not To lave been brought about Tor The p
pose or with view OF pcrpetratlng the olense with
which tho plaintiff is charged (which was adultery
And in this connection the Court cannot lorbear TO
mark that the character or minister or tho
Gospel whose reputation in all respects, eX-
capt far as II may have become involved
By unfortunate matter in controversy appears 10 be
fair goes gre:. way to explain the ,os. II indeed any
explanation of them be thought to be necessary
Nor the Court refrain from the observation that the
good character which the paintin appears generally to
have bOrne both before and since the time the oense
Is alleged TO have been committed, Is most significant
circumstance in her favor. II found guilty, the Court
and fidelity she turned suddenly " OF depravy and
and then suddenly again returned 10 her former
virtuOus such circumstance Is n5hly lMpfoOa
ble seldom There Is not scintilla
OF proof OF prior misconduct cOnjugal infdelity
and her subsequent behavior appears 10 Laye been limo
cent and the subject OF tho slightest suspicion II
was suggested by Lord SOwell, in williams agt VII
ams possibly less audabe motive" for instituting
the proceeding that IL might been Tor the purpose OF
"ryng me pertinent of how little proof will be accepted
rs sufficient" 10 sustain the charge OF adultery similar
vcnt,ired re- that the bringing forward OF this charge
more than years after tho occurrence Is alleged to
have taken place. and during all which time tho hnsband
seems have had thought OF the lnfGeiity OF tho
wife, Is try tho experiment OF how nttlo proof Will BE-
accepted sufficient " raise suspicion OF her lnu-
deity.
have trespassed already upon your Honor's ndul
gence
Judge Neson-Gentlcmen, get ready TO retire. Be IL
your seats tomorrow at IL o'clock.
The court then adjourned until ii today.