Yorkville enquirer. [volume] (Yorkville, S.C.) 1855-2006, 1875-07-01
THE BEECHER TRIAL.

The Beecher trial closed on Thursday af-
ternoon, and on the next day, after announc-
ing that under the circumstances he was COM
PEELED on examination of the affidavits, to de-
ny an application for re0pening of the case,
Judge Nelson proceeded to charge the jury.
The following synopsis covers the main points
of the Judges charge:
He began by impressing upon them the
gravity Of their duty. 1t would not be neces-
sary to 90 into the evidence in detail, he said.
He would only classify it. The charge Of
adultery was the turning point of the case.
The burden Of proof rested on the plaintiff:
1t was not necessary to prove it by direct evil
dence, but there should be enough proof to
satisfy an honest Judgment His honor then
pointed out the difference between direct, cir
cumstantial, and presumptive evidence. In
acting on the two latter the jury should ex-
ercise great care. Their conclusion must be
drawn from all the evidence. His Honor
then took up the consideration of the written
testimony. In regard to the letter Of contr-
ton, his Honor charged strongly in favor of
its genuineness, leaving to the jury to deter
mine its Specification, except that they must
find that Mr.. Beecher was then conscious of
an ofense against Mr. Tlton. Oral confess
ions are, he said, extremely good evidence.
The jury should, however, be satisfied that
they we're correctly reported by witnesses.
Lack of denial must generally be regarded as
confession Of guilt.
His Honor went on enumeratlng the va
rious phases of the trial, telling the Jury that
they were the sole judges of the matters in dis
pute and of the motives Of action. In regard
to the policy of silence, it was due to the de-
fendant to consider that shortly after the pub
ication of the Woodruff scandal it was the
sense of meeting of Plymouth Church that
silence should be held. Neither would it be
wise conceiYing Mr. Beecher guilty ola lesser
crime, and, being charged with several others,
to believe him guilty of these last while he
was seeking to conceal the first only. The
jury should not apply the ordinary rules of
life to their consideration as to whether the
causes Mr. Beecher alleged were sufficient
to account for his great grief 1t was the du-
ty of the jury to reconcile, as far as possible,
conflicting statements. and hesitate to the last
to accept suggestion of perjury. Too much
importance SnOulu uOI De given w CiC"iu
stantial differences. In regard to Mr.. Moul-
ton, if the jury believe that he intended to
state the truth here they are to make allow
ances for his previous denials. If they be-
lieve Tilton to have put forward his theory
of his wife's innocence with moral purpose
they were to give him the benefit of it. The
general rule was to discredit persons making
such conflicting statements. The truth or
falsty of Mrs. Moulton's testimony was
matter for the jury. There was no proof Of
coercion or undue influence. The fact, how
ever remains, that her husbands deeply con-
cerned in this case, and that must be consid'
cred on the question of bias. In regard to
the question of damages, the letters of Mrs.
Tilton have force. The greater the love the
greater the damage. So also the more lewd
the conduct of the husband the less his dam
age. But lewd conduct on the part of the
husband was no bar to the question Of limo.
cence or guilt of the defendant. The intimacy
between pastor and his parishioner was OF
greater latitude than ordinary, and the de-
fendant was entitled to the benefit of that.
The defendants good character was also
presumption of innocence.