The Leavenworth weekly times. [volume] (Leavenworth, Kan.) 1870-1880, 1875-07-01

in.s have been stated in your hearing, and /
YOU perceive the charge Of adultery is de-
MED by the answer, which lies at the foun-
dation vi the case. You are also 10 under
stand that the evidence should be such as
to carry conviction 10 the minds OF just and |
prudent men /; should point to the actual |
guilt more directly than 10 any other reas-
enable hyp,thesis. The wrong charged in |
this complaint might be proved by direct. !
or BY circu:u>tanti2l evidence, but sue. |
charge is noi usually proved, OF, indeed, |
probable, by direct or positsve evidence
The reason Is obvious. In most instances,
where under restraints, an apparent in
proper intimacy degenerates into liceutiOus
acts, 10 such cases, to all cases Of doubt, the
law OF evidence, searching and inhexible,
applies tests, Prescriptions, and the infer
ence drawn from the facts, and from
conduct according to the dictates
OF experience, so that the question OF guilt
or innocence may he determined by the jury
in the light reflected by surrounding ci.-
cuIIstance~.
Judge Nelson said that few illustra-
tions. stated with reference to a case Of this
character, NAV enable YOU 10 understand
sufficiently Tor the present purpose, the diff
ference between direct, circum-tantial and
pre-umptive evidence Ii witne~s should
testify that he had seen the ac. Ial commits
sion Of the sexual act charged. that would
he what is called direct and positive evil
dence If witre-s should testify that the
wife and paramoUr occupied the ssni-
room all night in such Il manner As tend
ed 10 the conclusion that they had slept to-
gether; or ii he had admitted his guilt that
would lie circunstantiai evidence ii the
letter received by the defendant, charging
him with adultery, had been answered hy
him by simply saying, Il am sorry and hope
to I've forgiven that, by natural process
OF reasoning would I've presumptive cv:-
dence The Judge said circumstantial ev-
i,ience must I've acted upon cautiously. Ey-
ldcnce bearing on the principal point, that
OF adultery, may he taken up in its order,
thus: first, dS IO the writing referred 10:
| second, rs to the oral admission; third a.
| to the implied admission, and fourth, a. to
the general conduct of tie defendant. !
purpose To call Your attention
to some OF the more important
| matters falling under each OF those heads ::
! your conclusions should not he drawn from
one of these CLASSES Of evidence, but from
all the testimony on this branch Of the
| case combined In taking up the writin. re-
| ferred To, you will observe that the plain
| tif-s letter Of the 10Th Of December, 1879,
demanding that defendant should leave his
| pulpit and the city, was the tiI,t open act
Of hostility; the plaintiff claims that was
| in Difference to his wishes at that time.
| \ paper written By Mrs. TiltOn in respect
| to her relations TO defendant WAS held by
| Noulton; the copy Of il which plaintiff
had was torn up after having been read as
stated to the defendant; proof OF the contents
OF that paper was ruled out, because the
writing was confidential communication
| bv the wife to the husband, and because he
| was party 10 its destruction but that
| ruling was no observation, a. no charge
ever written by Mrs. Tilton could have
| been evidence against defendant that
| srme evening Beecher, with the assent OF
the husband, called ON Mrs. IistOn; ne
| then obtained the paper commonly called
the rctraction afterwards. The next paper
| in order l. that OF January LIST,
| ISL; il Is Moulton's writing,
except the lines nj the bottom, and the sig
| nature. written by Beecher. A question OF
! fac in dispute L. - this paper, deserves
| your attention. MIR. MOult0n saws il was
dictated, sentence by ,enteEce, and that 1t
| was read over rs 10 the degree OF credit TO
! which this witness in conflict may be en-
, titled. You are 10 remember they speak Of
| what occurred III Il time Of great excite
| ment. They may not have been equally
| affected, but while the one was
pouring ont his thoughts in agony Of self
depreC alton, the other may well have been
moved il sympathy. The Judge said refer
enCe ny Iim to other papers would I've near
| lv unnecessary. but from them II arp-ar>
| that the defendant was conscious Of having
committed some wrong or ofieu-e affecting
the plaintiff and his family With that
| observation a. to the import q papers,
| submit them to YOUR consideration, iE7t
| YOU NAV, taking them in connection VIII
| the proofs =. large, determine what thai,
wrong or offence was. Passing 20 the sec
oui branch OF evidence, as 10 the prime pal
charge, in the order stated, call your AZ
tention 20 the alleged oral admission. The
confession Of 4 party, made against his own
interest, n To the facts known and under
stood by him, il clearly proved, Is regarded
| aS high class Of eTideICe, because il Is
contrary I, experience for men :" admit
what hurts them, Il not true. The jay
should he satisfied that the witness cl'a-!v
understood correctly remembered and fairly
repeated what was said. The third class
OF evidence Is "a to tacit or implied alInis-
sion. II j. assumed that on suitable Occa-
sions most men have such regard for their
own interests that on being uniustlv charg-
ell or maligred they will speak out in de-
NAL or Justification. The most obvious
difficulty in applying this doctrine arises
from consideration that all men may not
act alike in the same circumstances, and
the Jury may ascribe To sense oil guilt
what was due to mere surprise or s1me uu'
known restraint.
The testimony Of the plaintiff and o.
Mr. and Mrs MoultOn Is a. te two fOIn,S OF
adn.ission-the one oral, and the other im-
piled. In considering these portions OF that
testimony which relates to the defendant.
admission of guilt, you will recall the doc
trine stated under former head, To the eli.
feet that Il reasonable doubt a. 10 the waHt
oi apprehension, OF the defendant. ~
the first place YOU will consider his cOHduC,
in his inveryiew with Mrs. Tiit0E, a. prov
Ell by JOS H. Richards and Kate Carey,
! he circumstances stated by them, are
claimed To disclose an undue familiarity.
Your attention has been called To- i series
| OF events to the reasons which NAV have
lei TO certain modes OF action &
acquie~Cence OF restraints, TO occasional
disturbances. approximations and reser,.
nients lap-ing into seasons OF peace. The
counsel have given You their views As 70
the significance of each fact and circum-
stance, but in and through 1t all the vital
and absorbing question remains not whether
tine defendant acted wisely and we'll, but Is
he would not have acted il innocent o!
this particular charge. | recur 10 the let
ter oi the 2G,h ri December, delivered by
Bowen, in which plaintiff said to defen-
dant: Il demand that for reasons tina;
you explicitly understand, tina; YOU imule.
diaiely cease IRON the ministry oil
Plymouth Church. and tina; yOu
quit the city OF BROOKLYN, a. to residence y
The defendant said, This man il crazy
Ii l. Tor Won 10 consider whether that re-
remark was or was not in the nature OF a
suggestion that there was no sensible reason
for making that demand, and whether il
conversation or in tone and manner defend
ant betrayed any consciousness OF guilt.
The Judge referred TO the policy Of 81
lence and suppression, advocated early in
the trouble, ~ IN artificial expedieEt
which failed.
When the Judge completed his com
} ments, he asked il counsel were content,
and Mr.. Beach replied, I'VE are, Sir.
One OF the jurors asked il there were any
papers relating to the case which could b-
. | al. L.. 81. =