The Portland daily press., 1892-10-29

|
Take the four hour call, and by the
way. there is no testimony to show that
it lasted for four hours. That man tried
to force her to sign an oath. In whose
interest was that oath?
A great point is made that Mrs. Pease
did not escape OF make an outcry when
that man came. But you remember that
he carefully locked the doors SO she
couldn't.
Now. if you know ANYTHING
about such matters-and | hope YOU do
you will know that
A Woman Does Not Scream
under such circumstances. [Sensation
in court room.] A womans scream is
an involuntary act, when she is suddenly
surprised And if man holds her by
the wrists and threatens her she is not
very likely to scream.
| The trail of the serpent was over it all.
1t was all in the interest of Edward Il.
Burrowes, by his agents, employees and
paid sneaks.
There is one more circumstance that
indicates that Edward I. Burrowes, this
confessed liar and writer of anonymous
letters, is guilty. He knew long ago
that he was charged with this offence. If
| he had been an innocent man would he
not have gone and asked Mrs. Pease to
| have seen those letters. But he did
not.
And further, when Mrs. Pease was tel
ling her story on the stand, story of
persecution and trial, Edward 7. Bur-
rowes sat there with grin on his face.
| And | submit that there was no other
man in the court room who did not have
the kindest consideration for her.
| In closing Mr.. Rand referred to the
law governing the case, and appealed to
the jury for justice to his client
This ended the arguments. Every
| word was listened to with breaIhless at
tention, and the court room was more
crowded at the close than at the begin
ming.
In the afternoon the judge
Committed the Case to the Jury.
He reviewed it at some length, in
structing them as to the law governing
their deliberations. He touched on the
matter of testimony as follows;
SIT is important that the jury should
not overlook the relations which the wit
nesses hold to the case. The law now
permits parties to be witnesses in their
own cases, but it does not expect or re-
quire of the jury that they shall place
the some confidence in the testimony of
the deeply interested party that they
would in the testimony Of disinterested
witness; nor does it require the jury to
place the same confidence in the testi-
mony of the personal and intimate
friends of the parties, persons connected
with them in business or the social rela-
lions of life, members even of the same
secret society or club, that they would
in one totally disconnected with the par
ties, and apparently having no feeling
or interest in the case. For
sometimes the feeling of
friendship alone will lead witness, if
not to falsify in his testimony to color
and change it as much as if he was the
party to the suit. The jury should
therefore, in weighing the evidence of
witnesses, carefully consider the relation
they hold to the suit.
These remarks are applicable to husband
and wife. as we'll as to the parties to the
suit In weighing the evidence of the
principal witness for the plaintiff in this
case, Mrs. Pease, and in weighing the
testimony of Mr.. Burrowes you must not
overlook the relation which they hold to
the transactions and to the suit The
law allws-a wife to testify for her hus-
band when he has a lawsuit with anoth-
er person, and it allows the defendant in
the suit to testify, but it does not meas
ure the. degree of credit which the jury
shall place upon the testimony of either
The two principal witnesses are Mrs.
Pease and MI. Burrowes. 1t is your
duty to weigh their evidence carefully,
scrntinize the probability of their state
ments, their relations TO the suit, and
then say how much confidence you feel
that you can place in their statements. y
Judge Walton also had few things to
say
About Experts.
'sThe law allows what it denominates
expert witnesses to express their opinions
in certain. classes of cases for the benefit
of the jury and the court, the judge
having first determined whether or not
in his opinion they are qualified to ex-
press an opinion. Then if they are adj
opinions and give such weight to them
as they think they deserve.
''But it has been stated to you by
counsel on both sides, that this class of
evidence as whole does not stand high
in the estimation of the courts. Gentle
men, the reason is obvious. 1t is obvious
in this case that what counsel say is
true. If the judges of our courts and
those who have had the largest ex-
perience express some distrust of this
class of evidence and sometimes treat it
with contempt, the reason is obvious 1t
appears in this case.
"When men who claim to be expert
judges of hand writing and who have had
| long and large experience will place their
eyes upon three letters on word, the
same three letters on one paper
and the same combination on an
other, and one of them, speaking
from his long and large experience says
that the resemblance is SO manifest and
so striking that, with his knowledge and
experience, he cannot conceive that they
could have been written by two different
hands; and another one, claiming to
have had an equally long experience,
goes upon the stand and, looking at the
Same combination, says that they
are totally different. How can
we have very high respect
of these opinions? Now, the gentleman
who claims'to have testified in 500 differ
emit cases and in ID different states,--and
| 49,, will i,,due yhether M MT no WAC q