The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-24

The Judse-lnat is true, Mr.. Beach.
The law does not dispense with direct proof Of the
sexual act and accept crcumsantial evidence o. init
conduct Of the parties deviating from honor
showing 4 ustui disposition and purpose their part
ani the opportunity, by their resort to secuson aud
The circumstances must be such as would lead the
guarded discretion q reasonable AND Just man % me
- as'qa aype "no0
that are equally capable o. two neither
such things inherently from What would the
fn and cautious consideration OF discreet man
The proximste acts relied on must lead BY fair in
ference 10 conclusion lar ytabic a. that inc sup
position Of innocence cannot by any just course Of
reasoning 90 reconcned win It.
When In addition TO the open relation OF intimate
friendship there superadaed the paste raj relation no
nten mcnt against the chastity proprety Of that in
ustul devia the Of society appro
PIRATE TO such relations -
No charge confession on the part of the plaintiffs
wife II evidence against TIE defendant
evidence upon their lace as matter Of law import
confession Of adultery or sexual mdelcacy or iurnsh
any proof OF either by the mselyes
Where a party has destroyed paper material to his
case ana the contents the paper are disputed the pre-
SUMPTION arises thnI y ~ nad oesn pr0auces y W0uu
cuiar unavorable TO his resentaon oil its contents
II was now after four O'Clock.
\ Mr.. Morrls-I suggest that we adjourn, and that
Your Honor name day to near the balance Of the
/ requests
| MT. Morrls-I judged from the bulk OF your man
uscript IL would take day at least
rths jury believe that f he ~rrus story" a. m.
f1i' paiaaa they vsfdisio the defendant
The letters Of Mrs Triton to the defendant. which
upon their face indecent Illicit Specification
sdsrS s Ssss letters Of Mrs ton @
closed them aud handed them ever 70 mr Monton Is
he did not understand them in any indecent or Illicit
seuse. -
The letters and oral statements that have been ad.
sod In the OF CONFESSIONS be consid
cred in their entrety and as together covering long
credible That me defendant could hsve made such
Rm. and whether It Credible that such letters could
have been written by him with reference to guilt Of
adultery.
The expressions of conjunction and remorse in the
DEFENDANTS writings and alleged conversations belong
TO ho Of merely moral evidence and neither tend
TO support are capable OF supporting any legal GER
billy.
Mr. Morris-I hope Your Honor will examine all
the authorities cited tonight
Tue judge know all aoout the cases quoted.
/ They are all divorce cases.
| Mr.. or course they are.
xxUL
yerson samitted his zulu of adultsry a he w
and most dangerous evidence that is reserved by the
XIV.
that the deie nlant he mad
co. BEING met BY h so denial upon
alleged con essons are corroborated by other sasfac-
Tory and consistent te''im NEW
whether as inc Of the ALLEGED
the whole course OF conduct OF the plaintiff ana his
the Charge was frs made and Consider wbsther Il Is
eS or sy n pacs II a aSa a
charged Or believed by th sTy F. be an aduiterer.
Where person |: charged with immoral conduct
dence Of his innocenc than his IN the TACT
that he endeavoed to prevent publicity or TO AVOID pub
offence Of he defend Mt was The making Of improper
proposals and that denied the charge might
il cannot be ovefthrown BY oral testimony a dierent
oral charge ana Ad~'''iS %kvrrr.
s .nd mater q .r The S q E sailed Ss
MOI on rs face import any act q adultery Or ofsexua
indelicacy. and Is no PROOF either.
None OF the defendants letters ana writings PIT in
evidence, upon tneir face as matter OF law, import
adultery Or sexual indeIicacy or urRln any proof o.
be inference that such fact prompted the Of
the letters and writings 49,
None or the den auts letters or writings put in evil
dence declare the of adultery They
Of eommiseration ami sei-reproach At The broken for
miy as presenIed to the deIendants appreciaton as
detailed ~ himself
II the Jury and that me plaintiffs wife len him in
ana Win view Y sspsrd,s I'm rom nm ana ina, ne
the plainn7s employer ADVISED a separation OF the
b s e e
and discredis thai Of the ga,1iu on the main issue
The fact that the plalndn continued to cohsbt with
charge ana up July, 1874 cogent evidence against
the truth OF the present s9srTs
The silence OF the plainud toward the defendant for
The fact that adultery had been committed i cogent
dence against the truth q ne present charge.
The testimony Of the plaRun that he hrst disclosed
yafu fue delp ant IN al. in
connection with business arra0gemens. aud united
sns thar he made no disclosures Of The charge % Inc de-
PENDANT untii this effort faicd Is coSent evidence
against the truth Of the Prssspt charse.
Z s Sy % w ana ne ssoG ~
relations himself and wife with him, Is cogen evil
denoe against the truth q We present charge
The four years. delay Of the plaintiff in making any
bringing OF such charge only in consequence Of
irritatons and resentmens proceeding from other
aud good iaith Of the present CHARGE.
Where, material question o. fact the plaintiff
way aud the dsiendsnt directly adverse and
ade oy the plaintiff before the acuol commenced
bound 70 conder ms testimony on the point a. concu-
sively dlscreditcd. WYNN
II the Jury believe ihat the plaintiff any other wit
tney should disregard tho wao1e testimony u such
witness
when witness test1es conversation ofthe defend
OF direct contradiction except by the oath Of the defend
ss w me s as ana he
ZION Il fully denied by the defendant they may reject
the testimony 70 such alleged conyersation
The uneduyoca admissions Of the plaintiff himself and
OF Mr. Motion that they have de Derately
aucav the involved In this present
charge In a IA wholly inconsistent with toe
ent charge and in maintenance Of the defendants and
Mra Titons discredits their testimony
contrary now given aud requires its rejection by the
Jury wholly untrurwortny
The Judge said ne would take the requests and
return them In the morning.
At the conclusion q the reading or the requests
20 charge Mr.. Beach made mis- motion to reopen
the case for the admission OF new evidence, as al
ready described. The Court then adjourned.
As soon as the Court adjourned Mr.. Bsach and
Mr.. Evarts stood up and grssped eacn other cor
daily BY the hand as they mutually con-
gratuiated one another upon their con-
duct OF the case. Mr.. Beeoner was surrounded By
mis- friends, and q STURDY blocking son OF Albion,