Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1875-06-25
Adjournment of the Court at 10
p. NJ, Without a Verdict.

among Lle ElNUlOuLl LuIOuHt lltDn was
early in his seat. Judge Nelson entered
few moments before the hour Of opening.
Judge Nelson stated that, under the cir
cumstances, he was compelled, on an ex-
animation of the atidayits, to deny the ap-
plication for reopeniBg Of the case, and,
In accordance with Beaeh's request the
papers were fled with the clerk of the
court. Judge Nelson then stated that the
Jury might retain their seats, if they 50 de-
sired, while he delivered to them the
charge.
After eOngratulating the jury upon the
approaching close of their laOors, and say
ing that he had hatitually refrained from
stating his own opinions on questions Of
fact, lie said: It is your duty to accept
fully, AID without shade Of mental reser-
walton, the rules of law stated, but on the
other hand, 1 wish to pay a like degree Of
respect TO your great Office. You are the
sole Judges of the weight Of the testimony,
Of the credibility Of the witnesses. a sense
of this restraints me from commenting on
the proofs at large, and from indicating to
you what my opinion may be on the ques-
tions Of fact involved. Your recognition
Of that as your relation to the court, and TO
the cause, is due to the oath you have
taken to render true verdict according to
the evidence. 1Iy'reconition Of it is due
not only to you, but to these parties, as the
moral force Of verdict depends largely up
on the fact that it is the unbiased judg-
ment Of the twelve men selected from the
body of our citizens, and in the most SOL
emn form known to our laws consecrated
to the service.
He then stated that counsel had extract
ed so much testimony from the
One Hundred and EIeTen Witnesses
that if he was to quote it to them they
would not reach their deliberation until
days hence, weary and exhausted. The
pleadings had been stated in their hearing
and they understood that the charge of
adultery laid at the bottom Of it. The
Judge said some of the testimony relates to
the principle question in issue; some Of il
to the credit due certain witnesses; some of
it the mere question of pleading. The
pieadings have been stated in your hearing
and you perceive the charge Of adultery,
denied by the answer, lies at the founda-
tiOn of the case. Upon the issue thus joined
the burden of proof rests on the plaintiff
You are also TO understand that the evi-
dence should be such as to carry cOnvic-
tion TO the minds Of Just and prudent men.
Il should point to actual guilt more directly
than to any other reasonable hypothesis.
The wrcDg charged in this complaint might
be proved by direct or by eircumstantial
evidence, but such charge is not usually
proved or indeed prOvable by direct evi-
dence. The reason is CbviOns. In most
instances where under series Of restraints
an apparen: improper intimacy degenerates
into licentiOus acts, the evil intent and life
put on the garb of innocence. To such
cases, toall cases of doubt and difficulty,
the law Of evidence, searching and flexible,
applies the peculiar tests of presumptiOns
and inferences drawn from the facts and
from the conduct according to the dictates
1 of experience, so that finally the question
Of quit or innocence may be determined by
the jury in the light reflected by
| the surrounding circumstances. A few
Simple illustrations
! stated with reference 10 a case Of this
character may enable you 10 understand
sufficiently for the present purpose the diff
ference between direct, c.rcumstantial and
! presumptivc evidences. If witness should
/ testify that he had seen the actual commits
| sion of the sexual act charged, It would be
| what is called direct and positive eTidence.
| If a witness should testify that the wife
and the paramour, defendant, had Occu-
| pied the same room all night in such a
| manner as tended to the conclusion that
they had slept together, or if he had admit
| ted bis guilt, that would be circumstantiaI
/ evidence. If, to a letter received by the
| defendant, explicitly charging him with
| adultery, he answered simply saying, 81
| am sOrTy and hope to be forgiven or, if on
/ being thus charged in a conversation by
| one having an interest in the matter, he
| had made no answer whatever, that, by a
| natural process of reasoning, would be pre-
sumptiVe evidence.
| The Judge said circumstantial evidence
must be acted upon very cautiously. EVi
dence bearing on the principle question
! that of adultery, may be taken up in Its
| order, thus: First, as to the writings re
| ferred to; secondly, as to the oral admis
| sions; third, as to the tacit or implied ad
| missions; and fourth, as to the general con
| duct Of the defendant. propose briefly t
call your attention to some Of the more I'M
| pOrtant principles falling under each o
| those heads. Your conclusions should no
be drawn from one OF these classes Of evi
| dence, but from all the testimony on thi
| branch of the case combined. In takin!
up
referred to, you will observe, that PLAINTIFF
letter of the 10Th of December, 1870, de
| manding that defendant should leave hi!
pulpit and the city, was tie first open &C
Of hostility. That demand was withdraw
at an interview had by the parties at MOul
| toms house, Oh the evening Of Dec. SO
! 1870. The plaintiff claims that that was il
Difference to the wishes of his wife. A
that time paper written by MTs. TiltOn
in respect to her relations % defendant, wa.
held by Moulton. A copy Of it whicl
plaintiff had, was torn up after having bee
read, or stated to the defendant, and th
original also was torn up afterwards b,
| Mrs. Tilton, with her husbands assent
The proof of the contents of that paper wa
ruled out because the writing was conf
Dental communication by the wife 10 th
husband, and because he was party to it
destruction, but that ruling was no depriva
| tionas no ochargeWritten By Mrs. .TiltOn coul
have been evidence against the defendant
That same evening Beecher, with the as
sent of the husband, called on Mrs. TiltOI
He then obtained the paper cOmmOnl
called ''the retraetiOn," afterwards suTreT
/ QGIbu 10 MOlllOls LAAI llGAl pdplA IA VI N4N
IS that Of Jan. !, 1871. 1t
in MOultOn's writing except the line
at the bottom Of the signature, written b
Beeche-. a question Of fact in dispute a
TO this paper deserves your attention
| Mr.. DOultOn says that 1t was dictated, ser
tence by sentence, and that it was rea
over. Mr.. Beecher denies that dictatiOl
and that reading. As to the degree {
credit as TO which these witnesses thus
conflict NAV be relatively entitled you al
to remember they speak Of what OccurTe
: at a time of great excitement. They M
/ not have been equally affected. But Will
the one was pouring cut his thoughts in a
agony Of self deprecatiOn the other ma
well have been moved in sympathy. tt
law las tender consideration for an II
trinity of memory thus inherited. A wi
ness is not expected TO talk Of events wit
certainty as to the subject thus spoken
by these witnesses. You mast be prudeI
) | in reference TO mere probabilities. 1o
e | are not to indulge in speculatiOns or light
2 consider matter which has been sfiTme
{ | because it may not seem reasonable.
] The Judge said reference BY him TO Oh
/ other papers would be nearly unnecessar
but from them it appears the defendant vi
? conscious Of having committed some wTOT
Z or offense affecting the plaintiff and b
& ! family. With that observation as to u
e import of the papers, submit them
| your consideration, that you may, taklI