Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-06-25
The Evidence and the Witnesses
The Plaintiff and the De-
ieRdant-The Poor. Ne
elected Wife The
Ruined Home.
Tie Alleged HiscOnducts Of TiltCn
No Defense TO the Action
The MOultOns and the
BlackmaiI Business.
A Charge Rather Favorable to the
Deiendant-The Requests to
Charge Considered The
jury Still Locked up.

New YORK, June 24-The c0urt-r room
was crowded. Beecher and wife sat
among the Plymouth church thrOng.
Tilton was escly i'm his seat. Judge
Nelson entered the court few minutes
before the hour Of opening.
Judge Nelson said that under the
1 circumstances he.was compelled, on an
| examination Of afiidavits, to deny the
application for a re0peDing Of the case,
and in accordance with Beach's request
the papers were filed with the clerk OF
the court.
Judge Nelson then stated that the
jury might retain their seats. if they SO
desired, while he delivered TO them tne
charge. After cOngTatulatiDg the jury
on the approaching close of theiT Iabors,
and saying that he had habitus1ly re-
Trained from stating his own opinions on
questions Of fact, he said: at is your
DUTY to accept fully and without shade
pf mental reservation the russ of law
stated, but on the other hand l wish to
pay Ike degree Of respect to your
great Office, You are the sole Judges Of
the weight Of testimony anG OF the
cTeciDility Of witnesses, A sense of
duty restraints ne from commenting on
proofs At large and from indicating TO
=
questions Of fact involved. Your recog-
milton OF that, as your relation TO tie
court and to the cause, is due to the oath
you have taken 20 render a true verdict
according to the evidence. Ny recog-
milton Of it is due BOT only to you but to
th sse parties, as the moral force OF a
verdict depends largely on the facS that
it is the unbiased judgment OF the
twelve men selected from the bs1y OF
our citizens, and in the most solemn
form known 10 our laws cOnsecTated to
the public service" He then stated
that counsel had extracted so much tes-
timony from the one hundred and
eleven witnesses that If he were to
quote it 10 them they would not
reach their deliberations until days
hence, weary and exhausted. The
pleadings had been stated in their
Hearing, and they understood that
the charge OF adultery lay at the bottom
Of it. The judge said that some Of the
testimony related TO. the principal ques-
ton in issue; some Of it to the credit
due 10 certain witnesses; some OF it TO
the mere question of damages. Plead
ings have been stated in your hearing,
and you perceive the charge OF adultery
denied by answer lies at the foundation
the burden OF the proof rests on the
plaintiff. You are also to understand the
evidence should be such as to carry co.,
viction TO the minds Of just and prudent
men; should point to actual guilt more
directly than to any other reasonable
hypothesis. The wrong charged IN this
complaint might be proved by direct or
by circumstantial evidence, but such a
charge is not usually proved, or indeed
prOvable, by direct and positive evil
deDce. The reason is obvious; in most
instances, where under a series OF re-
stTaints sn apparent improper intimacy
degeneTates into licentiOus acts, the evil
intent and life puts on the garb Of innO-
cence to such cases. To all cases of
doubt and difficulty, the law OF evidence,
searching and flexible, applies peculiar
tests, pTesumptiOns and iEierences,
drawn from facts and from conduct ac-
cording to the dictates Of expe-
Renee, so that, finally, the ques-
ton Of guilt or innocence may be
determined by the jury in the light re.
Elected by thesufrOunding circumstances.
Judge Nelson said: A few simple
Illustrations, stated with reference to
cases of this character, msy enable you
TO understand sufficiently for the present
ciTcumstantial and presUmptive evil
dence II witness should testify that
he had seen the actual commission of
the sexual act charged, it would be what
is called direct and positive evidence.
l! q witness should testify that the wife
and the parEmOur (defendant) had Occu-
pied the same room all night, in such
manner as tended to the conclusion that
they had slept together, or if he had adj
mitteG bis guilt, that would be circum-
stantiai evidence. II, to a letter received
by the defendant explicitly charging
him with adultery, he answered, simply
saying, 81 am sorry, and hope to be for
giysn,n or il on being thus charged in 3
conversation 10y one having an interest
in the matter, ne had made no answer
Wh2teyer, that, by natural process Of
reasoning, would be pTesumptive evil
deDce. The judge ssid circumstantial
evidence must be acted upon very eau
tiously. Evidence bearing on the prin-
cipie question, that of adultery, msy be
taken up in its order, thus; flrst, as
to the writing referred; secondly, |
as to the oral admissions;
thirdly, as 20 the tscit or implied adj
mission, and foUrthiy, as to the general
conduct OF the defendant. l purpose
more important matters falling under
esch Of these heads. Your conclusions
should not be drawn from one OK these
classes Of evidence, but from al the tes-
timony on this branch Of the case COM
bined. In taking up the writings re-
ferred to you will observe that plaintiffs
letter of December 26, 1870, demanding
that defendant should leave his pulpit,
and that the demand was Withdrawn at
an interview between the parties on the
evening Of December 50, 1870, the plain
tiff claims that that was in Difference TO
the wishes Of his wife At that time a
psper written by Mrs. TlltoI IN respect
- 10 her relations 70 defendant was held
by MoutOn. The copy OF it which
plaintiff had was torn up, after having
been read or stated TO the defendant;
the original wss also torn up after
ward by Mrs. Tilton with her husbands
consent. The proof Of the contents Of
that paper are ruled out, because the
writing was a confidential communica-
ton from the wife to her husband, and
because he was party tOits destruct1oni
but the ruling WIS no observation, as no
charge written by Mrs. Iiitop could
have been evidence against the defend
ant. That same evening BeecbeT, with
the assent Of the husband, called on
Mrs. 1iltOn. He then obtained the pa
per called the retrsctiOn, afterward sur
rendered to EOultOn. The next paper
in order is that of January l, lS7i. 1t
is in MoultOn's writing, except the lines
at the bottom and the signature, written
b E.eecher. A question Of fact il dis
TC,e az 10 this paper deserves your 81
/ tention. MopltUn says that it was die
tated, sentence by sentence, end that it
vas read over. Beecher denies that die
tstion and reading. To the degree Of Gre
| dit to which these witnesses, thus in
conflict, may be relatively entitled,