New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-06-24

cnnrmafOn OF Tn ueendant Testimony INC
understand them in any indecent or Illicit sense
Mr.. Morris-Is that proposition of lawf
Mr.. Abbott icontinuingl:
sst c,ton Notes q ca,s 70 cco1s,ss,ory
legged lent sr I g the hasolnd in getting posses
rsd sso had al witt 10 the circumstance
the construction Of the letter of
nission Of adultery they would NOS 50 readily have con
sented TO 1t beng given up
XxXIv. No letters or writings OF any other person
THAI the defendant although communicated to him. are
evidence whatever against him. except OF the fae'
that their contents were brought TO his notice.
Judge Neison-That has been ruled several times dur
ing the progress OF the
XXXV.-The letters and oral statements that have
been adduced the nature OF confessions are 10 Do
considered IN their entirety and as together coFels
period years and jury 10 consider
it credible that the defendant eona nave nnaas d
MED by him. aud whether IL Is credible that scn letters
could have been written by him with reference TO quit OF
NoTEgTes:imony Of witnesses to confessions that real,
ground alone 'C Lyon aet Lyon, 81 Barb, 1881
XXXVI The expressions OF conjunction and remorse
long TO the class OF merely moral evidence and neither
tend support capable of supporting any legal
certainty as 10 the fact nature Oh uegree oi
XXxvII Testimony Of witnesses that party charged
conversation admitted his guilt OF adultery IA the
weakest and most dangerous evidence that receiver W
NorrGrecnleaf on Evia by Rsdf 900 200 approved
Dreher agt- Town Of fchburg - WISE 675 Maln agr
M2n co %nH Is ezP RE AFT aT Psen Carr $40
Meyers agt Baker Hardin, 54i stone ss Ramsey Mon
E speed az P az can ei a. S''' 10 i'' 90
xXxvIIL The testimony OF witnesses even II fully
credited that the defendant in conversation admltlei
that hld committed adultery being met by MS sworn
denial upon the trial. is not sufficient proof OF his guilt
unless the alleged confessions cOrroborated by other
satisfactory and consistent testimony: At, 49,, o
essions Of the party are charge OF adultery
,S Ss osr s ey are not Sufficient grounds
decree So clear circumstance as deieants having
staying long being alone with any woman SCI was
evidence distinct confessions Belts agt Belts Johns
Wax s en- f fS Tie asSG baxter
70 the same effect dctum in corbin agt Jackson II
adultery confession with other proof Is not
even competent and cannot be admitted ,oo o.,..u m
Radcd j. Kent ard Benson j. coacurng and The other
judges holding that with corroboraon the confession
ITsgg Consist iS9 7n She Sdi afi T. s eSa
fesons competent independent OF coroboraton but not SUI
II Is the settled law in this confession alone
I ma P bot n 10 p amt BY
stances will not justify conviction There must De s hnh
when that confession Of court be enough
iS G"nnf9 fss c s on b. savage j. People
agt Bsdge 10 d. SO (5upreme Co., 1885, opn by Nelson
suH People as Dement, q ~ other " les f
this state. ...,-,
fUunnmberedl The corroborating evidence which the
Va
evidence directly tending to prove tho alleged adultery
NOTE.-IyOn agt. LYON. 81 Barb. l3S.
will cite also "a authorities upon that proposition
Wnscomb agt wlnscomb and Billings agt. Billings. the
case cited by learned friends where the corTobora
ton was that the accused had four five children By
other woman than his wife
Mr. Morris ironically take it your Honor will e1-
anime all these authorities this evening.
Judge Neilson-All those divorce cases am per-
fectly familiar with them, and the principle upon which
nna of
them.
Mr. Morrs-He might rs well attach the Law Library
to his points
Mr.. Evarts-Iie won't argue II.
Mr. Abbott-The next proposition is
xxx Where a person is charged with immoral
conduct under such circumstances that he has no legal
direct evidence OF MS innocence other tnan MS own oa
the fact that he cndelyored 70 prevent publicity or TO
avoid public controversy is no evidence OF guilt
XII In considering whether tho testimony OF the al
legged verbal admissions IS corroooated the jury must
his witnesses in their Intercourse with the defendant
the charge nrst made. and consider whether
possible probable that TINS conduct and social inter
course could taken place, II the defendant was
charged believed by theln 10 be an adj terer ,,o
te9oy o. seaat e me % g "a AMI ns aSs
credit testimony. state ag Marvin, IS N H. - To
I mSn Ta on mutual friend to Is scrc by his
admission q social intercourse with the alleged guilty party
r Morris-You did n cite the authorities ON the last
point.
Mr. Abbott-:o. The next proposition s:
Kill The plaintiffs written statement that the i'm
puted Ofense OF the defendant the making or I'M
proper and that defendant denied the charge
might be oyerthrown by direct proof OF the act OF adu
terry. but 10 cannot be oyerhown by oral testimony Oh
different oral charge and admission.
XIII. "A matter OF law, the paper OF January 1871,
does ts face import any act OF adultery or 0f
sexual indelcacy. AMI is no proof Of either;
Grover. Notes Of Cas, 2GJ.
Mr. Beach-Mr. Abbott. wish to be informed candidly
how long time you going to occupy. don't want
to stay here until dark
Mr. AbbOtt-I think have about four or six more.
(Readingl:
XLIII None Of the defendants letters and writings
put in evidence upon their face matter OF law import
either by themselves The fact OF either must be sup
piled by other legitimate proof before the law allows the
inference that such fact prompted the expressions OF the
letters and writings.
have not cited the authorities. but they are to the
effect that
Mr. Morris-Never mind the argument, Mr.. Abbott.
Mr. Abbott cOntinuingl-" Combination" does not
necessarily imply adultery being oftener used OF other
matters; and that fault" is word never used in the
books, of adultery. Reading
Xiv None OF the defendants letters writings put
in evidence ascertain or declare the fact OF adultery
dant OF administration and sereproaeh at the broken
Of the plaintiff aud domestic unhappness OF his
family presented the defendants appreciation and
detailed by himself
XIV 1.-THE jury find that the plaintiffs wife left him
duct and with view to separating from him, and that
the defendant in December 1870, gave information OF
the facts his wife and TO officer OF his church. and
to the plaintiffs employer and advised separation OF
the wife from her these facts must be considered
by the jury corroborang the Defendants testimony
and discrediting of the plaintiff the main issue
XLYI The fact that the plaintiff continued TO cohablt
with his wife, her alleged communication to him OF
the charge, and up to July, 1874, is cogent evidence
against the truth OF the present charge
Nora-State agt Marvin, 35 ": H. ~ Harris agt Rupel
lind 2Oy; Dillon Dillon Notes OF Cases, AIS, 439
HoulistOn agt Smyth, Bingr l27 -
XVII The silence of the plaintiff toward the defend
ant for nearly months after he he in possession
OF the fact that adultery had been committed coGent
evidence against the truth OF the present charge.
NoTR-Delay shows either nsincety in the charge
or combination. Dillon at Dillon Notes of