, 1875-03-21
THE BROOKLYN SCANDAL,
Bcecher's Defense from Legal Point
Of View.
The Mystery Of Bessie Turner, Alias
Lizzie MoDermott,
8EECHER'S DEFENSE.

FROM A LEGAL POINT OF v1Kw.
70 ths Ed.tar Of Tbs Chicago TRIBUNE:
CHICAGO, March 20.-The Tlton-Beechs,
scandA has been before the public 30 long and
SO prominently xs to have become somewhat
nauseating to most Of your readers; and yet
there is one feature Of it that, with one ex-
caption, has not been brought out, and that is
contained in the answer to the ott-repeated
question. =" How ia the testimony which the de-
fense have been adducing material, or oven ad-
missible7~
In the first place, LII. Beecher is to be tried
just as any other man similarly charged. JUS
tica knows no law which LIZ not alike applicable
to all men. Again, Mr. Baecher employs ateor-
neys, to whom he must look for the proper con-
duct OF his Casa An nunwarrantable interference
by him-as. tor instance, that il should be con-
Quoted solely upon moral grounds-wou1d au-
thorize them in withdrawing. More than that,
the Court has Jurisdiction in the premises
30 far only Is the questions arising are legal
ones. Therefore, il the testimony for the de-
feDse is legally admissible, 1t il proper in auy
sense in which this trial Ia trial at law.
The action ia purely civil one for damages,-
such damages - may haVe grown out OF tho
loss Of aid, comfort, happiness, society. and
whatever beueft inheEes il the marnage-rela-
to lessen. that damage, il admissible For in
stance: that the wife's character for chastity
was bad before tho plaintiff married her; that
he lived Nth her ofter he knew Of the criminal
intimacy With tho defendant; or that the plain
tin had been false to his ude--Boau. Die,
ri. Grim. Con-
Her letters to, and department towards the
defendant, tending to prove that she nade the
first advances the husbands connivance at the
adulterous intercourso; bis criminal connection
r4f.r I'm I'D +--n IL.
plaintiff previously lived with his wife his i'm
proper treatment Of her ; his groBs negligence
and iuattention In regard to her conduct with
respect to the defendant and any other facts
tending to show either the little intrinsic value
Of her society, or the light estimation in which
Sec. Sc.
It being material. tn . case Of this nature. to
ascertain upon what terms the husband and
wife lived toRether before seduction, it is COM
petent for the parties to Introduce such evidence
as bears directly upon that point,
There is case in Se,ozm's N;si Prins, which
even goes to the length OF holding that the
plaintiff in an action for Grim. cou- cannot main
tain bis suit it the defendant shows that he ia
notodously engaged in aduterous practices him
self; though this is probably pushing the rule
too far.
It Is true this kind OF evidence does not 70 to-
wards establishing Mr. Beecher's innocence OF
the charge OF adultery, except in so far as it may
tend to prove ! conspiracy On the part Of the
plaintiff. It is said Mr. Tlton would be as we'll
satisfied with verdict for cent as for 300 600.
But he cannot BY thus disclaiming desire for a
money-verdics, shut out testimony for the d.
fence which Is competent under the Issues
joined.
It is also probably true that the testimony in
question ia being used for the purpose OF divert
ing the attention OF the jury from the plaintiffs
more important testimony. But that is right
which few lawyers will deny, and which, I know,
every defendant will claim. Therefore, say
I" give the old man chance" with the rest Of
~. ]. R. G.