Evening capital journal. (Salem, Or.) 1888-1893, 1890-12-10
pARNELL'S FALL.
tn. Irish Leader in the 0Shea
Case.
THE JuD6E'S CHARGE TO THf IM.
Instruction that the Defend
ants We're Guilty Of
Adultery.

The evidence and result vi lhe
O'Shea- Parnell adultery case have
been given to the public in The cable
dispatches. The following charge to
the jury by Mr.. Justice Butts Is
from London papers of Nov. Is.
The Judge:-We are all o. US p'ac-
ed at some disadvantage, by reason
of the fact that We have only heard
one side. The respondent and CO.
respopdent have neither of them
thought fit 10 appear. ! should say
the correspondent does not appear;
hut while the respondent does ap-
near. she has taken no part in the
case. We have, therefore. to deal
with the matter az best We may.
The first question for you is wheth-
sr these two people, Mrs.O'Shea and
Nr. Parnell have committed adult
ery, Upon that there Is a great
mass of evidence which / do not
think it necessary TO call your atten-
ton to in detail, because unless you
are prepared for some reason or other
which | cannot imagine, TO say that
almost every one of the witnesses
examined has been stating that
which i not true, there CAD be no
doubt as TO the adultery. House
after house has been occupied with
no respondent. aud the correspond
ent, who gave assumed names and
there was the getting out Of The
balcony and down a fire escape
when the husband came. III fact
the evidence is SO strong and conclu-
sive that ii scarcely admits OF a
doubt. There are, however, certain
other matters To be considered. My
firet impression was that the quest
ions arising from these matter,
should be withheld from you which
/ have the power to do if ! conside,
there is no evidenc to 60 10 the jury
There are certain defences raiset
here which, If established By the
respondent or correspondent, woul'
be conclusive and absolute answei
TO the husbands petition Thos
defences are separately stated as con
nivauce, adultery and collusion
Beyond the question OF the nus
bands adultery, l very much doub
whether it would be Necessary for m'
10 comment upon the evidence
The defence Of neglecting his wife o
of separating b iInseif from bis wife
is one OF thOse defepces called dis
cretionery defenses-that Is TO say
that. even though the plea may b'
established. the court is not bound Il
TO which one of your number hal
addressed himself, and with refer
ence to which he has asked certalI
questions OF the petitioner, is one o
these discretionary defences, /;
matter which must, in the end
resolve itself into a question for me
because, if you thought there ha,
been neglect Oh the husbands par
such as urged, | should still hav,
10 consider whether | would allow il
10 debar the petitioner from the relic
which he ashs. have considered
that matter and | see no evidencs
to go to the jury; but / say clearly
taht | would mol allow any such de
fence to avail the respondent o.
correspondent in this case.
The question Of c0nnivance and
coliusion are matters which woulC
prevent the granting OF decree j
you found them against the petition
er, and therefore | will put one OF
two questions 10 you upon that
We have had the evidence OF the
petitioner, Captain O'shea, aud hs
has. on his oath, stated that there il
not the slightest pretence for the
charge. Then arises the question
Ought you TO believe that evidence
1t is very serious responsibility fol
II judge or jury TO take upon them
selves 10 di.beIieve a witness vino /,
uncontradicted, unless there is some
very strong reason for assuming
Notwithstanding his evidence, thai
he is telling that which II untrue
But in this case cannot help think.
ing that the matter does not rest up
on the evidence Of Captain O'Shea
alone, or anything like it, because
there is great deal Of documentary
evidence in support Of the state.
nisnt. Why, on ths Very fiTsf oc.
casion on which the prisoner had
suspicion Of his wife's misconduct
he wrote challenge to Mr.. Parnell