Burlington weekly free press. [volume] (Burlington, Vt.) 1866-1928, 1875-07-02

I ut or ABOUT the tilnt stdtNAs INV
view, and was the conversation substantially
as given by her? If so, and she were In er,
ror as to the length of the interview, tna'
mere incident would not be conclusive. Inc
question, gentlemen, rests with you.
Two other observations may be proper
Had Mrs. Moulton got the impression that
the defendants guilt was adultery, and IN
her conversation regarded that as the sub
iect in his mind as l.. was in her mind? do
van believe that, whether mistaken or not,
She testified honestly? Her manner on the
stand, and the opinion which the defendun;
himself had of her moral character and
worth. as stated in his letters, commend her
to YOUR respect There is no proof or artl-
fee. or coercion, or undue influence. The
fact. however, that her husband Is deeply
concerned in this controversy, and that her
testimony, without repeating, concurs with
his, is to be considered on the mere question
of bias. In sustaining the plaintiff cause
she is sustaining her husband as witness.
THE JUDGE ExoNERATEs TRACY.
As to another witness, Benjamin F. Tracy,
| two suggestions have been made-the trst.
that, having acted.as counsel for the defend
ant. he should not have been called a. wit
nes, for him in the case the second, that,
owing to an arrangement with or promise to
the plaintiff, he should not have acted As
such counsel.
In cases where the practice Of acting in
the double capacity of counsel and witness
ON the trial of cause has been most strong
" reprobated, an exception to the rule has
| often been recognized. Had such an exccI-
ton arisen in this instance? The conversa-
ton which took place between himself and
Others in the interview at Mr.. Moulton 5
house having been received in evidence, that
fact may well have imposed upon him the
duty Of becoming a witness. II that was his
view. and was the opinion Of his as
sociates to whom he deferred, you
will not readily perceive any substantial
ground for criticism.
Gentlemen. the other suggestion as to his
not being at liberty to act as counsel for the
defendant, assumes that he had been in pro-
fessional relations to the plaintifi,or in their
confidential intercourse had learned his Sc
erets or obtained information which he 9TH
erwiSe would not have had, and which gave
an advantage to the party alterward repre-
scented By him.
No such relation existed Mr.. Tracy had
not been the attorney or adviser Of this
rlaintif At the interview at Mr.. MOul-
tons house, the paper dated Jan. !, ISL,
written by Mr.. Moulton, was shown to, and
examined By Mr.. Tracy. After that, Mr..
Tilton was called in and before proceeding
any further, asked Mr. Tracy whether, ii
difficulty should arise between him
and Mr. Beecher. he would feel at
liberty to act for Mr.. Beecher, and Mr..
Tracy said that he would not. The criti-
csm rests upon that arrangement. Mr..
Tilton then made explanations. Did be
communicate to Mr.. Tracy and the other
persons then present any matter not preyi-
ously known to him. and that would enable
him to serve Mr. Beecher better than he
might have served him without that inf1r-
nation?
In testify ing to conversations with tie de-
fendant. and wha. through him Mr. Tracy
had known, Mr.. Moulton stated to Mr.
Beecher that he had told Mr. Tracy 1.-THE
truth of the matter, told him the fact Of the
case as it was :" that Theodore Tilton had
denounced NE for so doing, and had said to
me that had no business to reveal the guilt
Of Elizabeth to Mr.. Tracy without his con-
sent"
You will therefore observe that before the
promise made by Mr.. Tracy he had be-
come possessed Of the case-oi what Mr..
Moult0n called the whole of the iacts-and
that Mr. Moulton had been censured hy Mr..
Tilton Tor giving him that confidence.
You are also at liberty to consider what
confidential communication Mr. Tilton could
baye given to Mr.. Tracy, if any. beyond
what had already been communicated.
Yet, after all, you are not at liberty to try
this witness in respect to the line of probes
sional duty. unless You think it embarrassed
the force Of his testimony, and shows such
bias or prejudice a. would require You in
the ordinary Interpretation of it to make al
lowances for his feeling or passion.
Mr.. Tracy, position in respect to beins
counsel in the cause, and in respect to being
witness aitcrward when an emergency va,
supposed to have arisen, appeared To have
been attended with good degree Of dclica-
cy; and of all persons to whose Judgment
he could properly have deferred, the
learned counsel concerned with him in
the case, or who were in the case
before he consented to come INTO it Mt
all, were wise advisers They might
err. and we might err but when =
man takes all the prccaution that the cir
cumstanees will permit, yon. will make al
lowances sor him a. one who intends to d--
charge his duty.
THF PREsJ MILTON or INNOCENCE.
Upon principle and authority. and also
with reference 10 our accepted rules Of ST.
cal order, the intimacy and intercourse /
which j. allowed between married woman /
and her legal adviser, physician, or pa. tor Is I
greater than that which would be consider |
81 proper or becoming between the woman /
ana man holding no such special relation /
That principle applies here, aud the defend /
ant Is entitled TO the benefit of it. Lord |
in considering case where a
clergyman was concerned, and in repelling
the lmputatiOn of want of chastity. applied
he term "extreme improbability. That
earned Juri>t was given TO strong expires
lions, aud the term thus used was extrava-
,ant. What can he claimed is n mere pre-
of innocence. In this connection
t is proper to observe that after many years
pent in religious teaching and intellectual
eryicc, the defendant comes into court with
/ character which, until proof given against
lin, offers shield Of protection. We are
wont to say that all suitorsare treated alike.
md in most respects they are; but yet in
ase of this character, a man grown old in
prayer and pious service, has, prima faci,
he benefit of a presumption which the mere
nan of the world has not.
Mr.. Beecher's advances OF money, which,
I,raur,k Mr. Mnplfo,, -, l, 81, 8
ir. Tilton and family, appear to have been
mere acts of generosity. That money was
ot extorted by Mr.. Mouton, nor does tap
ear to have been the fruit of any improper
rtifces. Although it is of no special mo-
lent, think it proper to say that the I'M
evidence shows that Mr. Tilton
id not know that he was thus benefited by
lr. Beecher.
| said, early in my remarks, that, except
n points of slight Importance, did not ex-
ress opinions to jurors upon controyerted
uestions OF fact. | regard the conspiracy
nd attempts to black-mail suggested as Of
hat character. Those are crimes punish
BILE as such, not to be predicated on mere
lspicion. We have before Us no evidence
'hich could support such charges. and if we
''-f NHN tN7''iNh "'AA' ANiAieiii
he same if innocent, to be so declared in
epenGentiy of such articles
The nearest approach to black-mail would
ZEN to have arisen between Mr.. Tilton and
lr. Bowen, if the former did threaten to
ublish card injurious to the latter unless
lie money were paid. But we have no in d,
rest in that question. Moreover, he did
1t publish the card, nor was he paid until ',
ter due course of investigation. =
IE CHURCH COMMITTEE AND THE COUNCIL. t
There are two matters of local history r
hich have been placed before you mot fully q
directly, but sufficiently to impress your !,
inds, and as to both of which it is my duty l
caution you. The first is the inyestisa- n
IN of the church committee appointed by {
r. Beecher after the defendants letter to Il
r. Bacon had been published. That was a a
oceeding affecting the pastor in his rela- +
IN to the church and the church in its con- q
elton with him, 1t was their business, d
d therefore natural and proper, that per- c,
ms connected with the matter sbould have | u