The Rutland daily globe. [volume] (Rutland, Vt.) 1873-1877, 1875-06-25


the connection as you could feel the links
of chain which binds material objects to-
gether, yet to satisfy the rule you should
perceive and be fully convinced that con-
nection does exist. The jury were not to
indulge in any speculation about it.
Mems minds might be so variously in
fluenced by circumstances at the time
of their transpiring that their accounts
might be totally at variance with each
other or with their usual habit of speech or
thought. You will therefore seek to be
guided by the evidence as given you. Take
first this paper with whatever of evidence
as to the principal charge In the order
stated. call your attention to alleged oral
admissions and confessions of party made
deliberately against his own interest as to
facts known and understood by him, if
clearly proved, are regarded as of high
class of evidence, and deservedly so, be-
cause it is contrary to experience for men
to admit what hurts them, If not true. Ex-
perience proves rather that men evade or
deny the truth when the truth hurts. Tes-
timony to prove oral admissions should be
carefully scrutnized. The jury should be
satisfied that witness clearly understood,
correctly remembered and fairly repeated
what was said, but caution against relying
on such testimony too implicitly should
find its counterpoise in caution against too
ready rejection of it. Testimony as to ac-
tual admission of guilt by defendant was
given by plaintiff and by Francis D. Moul-
ton and by Emma G. Moulton, his wife.
That testimony has been contradcled by
defendant. The third class of evidence
is to the tacit or implied admissions.
In theory ii appeals to principle peculiar
to presumptive evidence. 1t is assumed
that on suitable occasions must men have
such regard for their own interests that on
being unjustly charged or maligned they
will speak out in denial or Qualifications,
hence it is that silence may often be regard
ed as confession. The most obvious difficult
ty in applying this doctrine arises from the
consideration that all men may not act
alike in the same circumstances, and that
the jury may possibly ascribc to a sense of
guilt what really was due to mere surprise,
or to some unknown restraint. But COM
monty applied, the doctrine seems quite
reasonable. 1t is not consistent with our
experience, "A just inference, that man
asked to pay money not due will deny his
Indebtedness THAT, if unjustly accused,
he will assert his innocence. II is of the
essence of presumption arising from mere
silence that the accusation or charge be
made in express terms. When testimony
appears to come within the rule, the infer
ference, if any, to be dra yn from an excuse
for silence are to be considered by the jury.
The testimony of plaintiff and Mr.. and
Mrs. MoultOn is as to two forms of admis.
sion, the one oral, previously noticed, the
other tacit, or implied, now under consid-
Grafton. You may not find the application
of some of that testimony TO one topic
and some of it to another, difficult. But
some specific directions may be useful. In
considering those portions of that testi-
mony which relate to defendants actual
admissions of guilt, you will recall the
doctrine stated under the former head to
the effect that reasonable doubt rs to the
want Of apprehension or of memory or of
fairness in witness proving such adm;s-
sione, imposes upon the jury the exercise
of great caution upon the testimony. You
will inquire whether the witnesses are cor
rect in their statements or whether
defendant was misunderstood by them.
| In considering the other portions of their
testimony as 10 implied admissions, also
contradicted by the defendant, you inquire
whether in the conversation had by him
with the witnesses, his adultery with the
| plaintiffs wife was spoken of in clear and
express terms If you find that he was
thus charged so that, acting on the inn
pulse common to innocent men, he would
have denied it il without foundation. You
will consider the infcrehRe to be drawn
lcnce. With the remaining class of ev-
idence us to the principal question in issue,
relates to the conduct of the defendant.
In the first place, you will consider
his conditions; his intercourse with
Mrs. Tilton, as proved BIZ Joseph II.
Richards AMI Kate Cary. The circum-
stances state by thsm are claimed to dis.
close an undue familiarity. In andthrougt
it all the vital and absorbing question re.
mains, not whether the defendant acted
wisely and well, but as he would not have
acted If innocent Of this particular charge
| recur to the letter of the 20th of Decem
Der delivered by Mr.. Bowen, in which the
plaintiff said to the defendant 81 demand
that tor reasons which you explicitly un
derstand, you Immediately cease from tn,
ministry of Plymouth chnrch and that yo,
quit the city of Brooklyn as s
residence The question is as to the man
ner in which this demand was received
The plaintiffs theory seems TO have beef
that as the offense charged in this com
plant had been petpetrated, the reason
thus generally referred to would be appre
hended. On reading the letter the de
PENDANT said, "This man is crazy 1t
for you to consider whether that remarl
was or was not in the nature of suggestion
that there were no sensible reasons TO
making that demand, and whether in con
versation or in tone and manner the de
PENDANT betrayed any consciousness of guilt
1t may be said also in reference to tn
interview of December 30th, 1870, at MI
Moulton'S house, where the copy of tn
paper called "the confession was tor
r apart, that the oral presentation of the sui
ject, whether in the exact items OF til
written paper or not may have been suiil