The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-06-25

action Tor damages, a civil action and THIS propo-
sition o. the charge being proved beyond reason
our books show, IL does NOT apply here. don't
feel IL 10 be OF any real moment
vi the verdict must be Tor the defendant unless the
result Of the whole evidence both sides be such rs 70
produce IN the deliberate conclusion OF the jury legal
Well a reasonable certainty means legal GER
tainty.
VIZ The charge Of adultery Is that merely IN.
ermlnaes the plaintiffs wife tends dlsgrace her
and ii il proper for tie Jury 10 Consider me ordinary
and natural consequences Of aeonyieon IN scfutniz-
s an accusation involving such grave, permanent ana
remediless consequences 10 others.
Very early in the case threw out some sugges-
lions to YOU then about this being question be-
tween plalntn aud defendant. not having regard
10 MIS-. Illton az upon trial. although IN certain
sense, OF course. you know tnat the effect OF the
determination does lap over ana reject upon her;
but still II Is too remote for us to judge by.
TIC charge Of adultery is one not only o. pecuni-
airy claim, but OF grave and moral considerations
anecLlng him. THAT Is all / feel myself called
upon To say in regard TO this request
Will II on weighing the evidence both sides,
there remains in the mind Of the jury doubt or per-
defendant 80
Wen, II that means, after considering and hear
ing all the testimony, you are prudent men
convinced in heart and mind that the adultery
was committed you should md Tor the plaintin.
M he !, higher the crime or the gayer the wrong
OF evidence should be enforced and charge Of criminal
highest evidence.
That is correct, gentlemen. We are not dealing
with evidence mere as II It were an action on
promlssory note, or II 1T were an action for SLAM
der, or OF one gentleman calling another liar.
II there were any evidence the pointing to
might have some means Of supporting by other wit
ms 9%n IN % e mis- bnt upon the
only witness who has any actual knowledge Of what the
the only person whom the law permits to sneak
witness as 10 tnose relations
Doubtless that is SO.
" ircum anti nj 10
be such as to exclude to moral certainty every hy
must mot o NJ All c 20 aer % End eon IL
guilt but they must be inconsistent with innocence
That is SO, gentlemen, OF course.
KILL The law does dispense with the direct proof
mae IN lieu erea proa OF
conduct OF the parties dcvatiSg rom OPEN and honor
able 70 me proprees OF chaste society and
security.
No evidence OF mere intimacy OF course would
not be substituted in place OF actual evidence. |
don't see there IS any substantial value in that
part oil the request commencing .unless there Is
actual prooi,n because indicated in the general
charge an offence OF this character Is not prove
any other way that Will be satisfactory to the
minds and the consciences OF tne jury
XIV, The circumstances must be such as would lead
tie conclusion u actual guilt For it is not
harsh ana intemperae judsmsnt moving upon appear.
neither y Il to be matter OF artificial reasoning jnds-
man
add, "a reasonable and prudent man" Well.
$40 the conclusion OF guilt because guilt Is ac
tual quit, and when you have question OF guilt
or tact or guilt ii Is not wen to load IL down with
adJectives or explosives. 1t Is question guilt
or question OF innocence which you are to de-
lermlne. IL is not TO be matter OF artificial
reasoning, ana is not to lead to u harsh or intern
pefate Judgment. / have tried TO illustrate thaI.
and Ii does not require me 10 say anything III adj
diton to what have said in the general charge.
This proposition is very clearly worded but
somehow there Is a special property In 1t which |
la M fiann a I'M nf ia nnn nrfn
nifty TO commit adultery Is no proof Whatever OF
guilt, but you don't need 70 be told that for there
must be evidence OF other circumstances coupled
with IL at the same time.
XVIII When i'll addition to the open relation OF init
tion. no intendenr against The chastity or propfiety
o. that intercourse can pc drawn, except upon proof
society appropriate to sucr relations
explained to you tue theory OF that
XIX. Where party mas destroyed paper material
tae pTesamp ton arises that 4 l. had been produced II
tia particular unfavorabe to his representation OF its
XXI In considering whether the testimony OF the
SoS u f S G b e s T
Charge was rst ma5e and consider whsher 4 is posi-
believe BY them to be a adulterer.
That IL so. The papers were in evidences
before you, and imported Tor so much or SO little,
and II is u question Tor you 10 decide. Then you
see how sensible that is, for II you have contro-
versy with respect TO dealings with your neigh
Dor and IL Is certain there would be litigation,
and you have the only copy OF q contract alter
ward introduced into evidence and Its terms
there, and the law IL very jealous as about the
party who bears 1t. Here is a paper which Mrs.
futon put in and was DESTROYS OF Retaining she
writes TO Mr.. Beecner TO use his influence with
'sdear FranEn 10 nave that paper DESTROYED, and
writes also to Mr.. MoultDn. Her importantly was
respected, ana that paper was destroyed. IL you
should think that was done when there was no
law suit In prospect you could not apply the
proofs have Just read. That as statements OF
what ne claimed they have little place as mat
weight and sucn construction In connection
with his conduct as you think nt and
q legal proposition 80 be stated by me-
written any person other than tina defendant
are ho. fS bs sSus w.r. 70 m
That Is correct SO far as IL goes. did say that
nothing that Mrs. Morse or those otner persons
might write would De evidence against the de-
PENDANT, aud old say so In reference 10 the letters
OF Elizabeth Turner which we're put IN evidence
Bur tbe reason why any letter ike Mrs. Morse,s
for example, and ike the letter delivered by Mr.
Bowen Is received In evidence IL 10 give point
aud character to the conduct OF the defendant.
and show IN what spirit and with what CONSCIOUS
ness ne received the communications at the time
And the notion is that IN favorable circumstances
a person VINO IS guilty may thus he taken on his
guard aud disclose a sense Of his guilt when lie
finds himself suddenly confronted with q verbal
tracts from him some expression OF manner aud
speech. That observation was made by the
learned counsel AZ the ume uliy when MRS. Morse's
letter was received In evidence. think Mr. Evafts
assented 10 that or stated tnat proposition.
xxxy-Ine letters and oral statements that nave been
addu ed in the nature VI confessions, are To be
sdered ~ their entirety, and IS together covering
@s Sod q aS TIE % ssa fSn aSs
such oral statements OF gullt attributed
him denied by hin. whether Il credible that
such letters ceuld have been written BY him with
erencc TO guilt OF adultery.
That corresponds, think with the instructions
have given you aud are covered Dy the charge.
XXxvL--Ihe expressions Of compuncton and rcnorse
~ the Defendant writings and alleged CONVEX salons
belong the OF merely evidence. and
neither end % support nor are capable q supporting
legal certainty as to the iact nature degree Of
imputed culpablity.
/ nave dealt with that suOject. Moral evidence
Ii OF great value, especially when you have TO
deal with intellectual questions, with emotions,
with mans consciousness OF guilt when sud
ueuiv charged, accused or confronted with some
thing when brings up before him any offence
when ne mas been guilty or and mas his moral
emotions sRd Sensbltles excited. ard thus
makes a revelation, aud tnds you get sometimes
real evidence which Otherwise would not be dis
covered. They belong undoubtedly % the class
OF moral evidence, aud tile question Is whetner
they tend ~ support or are capable OF supporting
any legal certainty as 70 tue facts, nature and de-
gree 81 imputed culpa0ilIty. rae subject IL dis