The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-07-01
THE Jury RETIREs.


NEW YORK, June 24.-The court room
was again crowded to-day. Beecher and his
wife sat among the Plymouth throng. Til
ton was early in his seat. Judge Nelson
entered the court room few minutes be-
fore the hour. On opening, Judge Nelson
said he was compelled, on an examination
of tie afidavits, to deny the application for
reopeuing 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 the charge. After congratulating
the Jury on the approaching close of their
labors, and saying that he had habltually
RETAINED from stating his own opinions
on the questions of fact, he
said: IL is your duty to accept fully and
without a shade of mental reservation the
rules of law stated. But, on the other hand,
I wish to paw like degree OF respect 10 your
great Office You are the sole Judges OF the
weight of testimony and OF the credi billty
of the witnesses. A sense OF this restraints
ne from commenting on the proofs at large,
and from indicating to you what my own
opinions may be on the questions OF fact In
yolved. Your recognition OF that, as your
relation to the court and to the cause, Is due
to the oath you have taken to render true
verdict according to the evidence. My
/ y
but to these parties, as the moral force OF
verdict depends largely upon the fact that 1t
| is the unbiased judgment OF the twelve men
selected from the body OF our citizens and In
! the most solemn form known to our laws
cousecrated to the service. He then stated
| that the counsel had extracted so much tes-
timony from the one hundred and eleven
| witnesses thatif he was to quote 1t to them
they would not reach their deliberation
until days hence, weary and exhausted.
fofn In Wi
| ing 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 question in issue, some or IL 10
the credit of certain witnesses, and some to
the mere question of damages. The plead
| ing has been stated in your hearing, and
you perceive that the charge OF adultery,
denied by the answer, lies at the foundation
of the case. Upon the issue, thus Joined
THE BURDEN OF PROOF
rests on the plaintiff. You are also to I'M
derstand the evidence should be such as to
carry conviction to the minds of just and
prudent men, aud should point TO actual
guilt more directly than to any other reason
able hypothesis. The wrong charged in this
complaint might be proved by direct or by
circumstantial evidence, but such charge
| is not usually proved, or, indeed, probable,
/ by direct and positive evidence. The reason
! is obvious. In mot instances where, under
/ a series of restraints an apparent improper
/ intimacy degenerates into hcentious acts,
the evil intent and life put on the garb OF
| innocence. To such cases, to all cases of
doubt and difficulty, the law of evidence,
searching and flexible, applies peculiar tests,
presumptiOns and differences drawn from
facts, from conduct according to the
dictates OF experience, so that finally
| the question of guilt or innocence may be
determined by the jury in the light reflected
by the surrounding circumstances. few
simple illustrations stated with reference to
q case of this character may enable you to
understand sufficiently for the present pur-
lose the difference between direct, circum-
stantial and presumptive evidence. IL a
! witness should testify that he had seen the
actual commission of the sexual act
/ charged, it would be what is called direct
aud positive evidence. If witness should
testify that the wife and the para
mour, the defendant, had occupied
the same room all night in such
a manner as tended to the conclusion that
they had slept together, or if he had admit
ted his guilt, that would be circumstantial
evidence. TO letter, received by the de-
! PENDANT, explicitly charging him with the
adultery, he answered simply, saying: II
am sorry and hope to be forgiven" or, if on
being thus charged in conversation by one
having an interest in the matter, he had
made no answer whatever, that, by nat
ural process OF reasoning, would be presump-
tive evidence. The Judge said that circum-
sta1tial evidence must be acted upon very
cautiously. Evidence bearing on the prin
cipal question, that of adultery, may be taken
up in its order, thus: first, as to the writing
referred to- second, as to the oral admissions;
| third, as to the tact or implied admissions:
fourth, as to the general conduct OF the de-
/ PENDANT. l purpose briefly to call your at
| tention to some of
THE MORE IMPORTANT MATTERS
! FaTf t,,n., of
conclusions should not be drawn from these
classes of evidence, but from all the testi-
mony on this branch of the case combined.
In taking up the writings referred to, you
will observe that the plaintiffs letter OF
the Goth OF December, 1870, demanding that
/ the defendant should leave his pull
pit and the city, was the first open
act of hostility. That demand
was withdrawn at an interview had by the
parties at Moulton's house on the evening
of December 80, 1870. The plaintiff claims
that iG was in Difference to the wish IS OF his
wife. At that time, paper written by Mrs.
Tilton in respect TO her relations to the de-
PENDANT, was held by Moulton. The copy of
it which the plaintiff had was torn up after
having been read or stated to the defendant,
and the original was also torn up afterwards
by Mrs, Tilt0n with her husbands assent
Proof of the contents OF that paper is ruled
out because the writing was
confidential communication by the
wife to her husband, and because
he party to its destruction. But that
ruling no hardship, charge writ
ten by Mrs. Tilt0n could have been evidence
against the defendant. That same evening"
Beecher, with the assent of the husband,
called on Mrs. Tilt0n. He then obtained a
paper, commonly called the retraction, after
| wards surrendered to Moulton. The next
paper in order is that of July 1, 1871. It is
in Moulton's writing, except the lines at the
bottom and the signature, which were
written by Beecher. question of fact
in dispute as to this paper deserves your at
tention. Mr.. Moulton says that it was die
lated, sentence by sentence, and that it was
read over. Mr.. Beecher denies that dicta-
ton and that reading. As TO the degree OF