Year: 1875

New YORK, June 24.-The court room


was crowded to-day. Beecher and his


wife sat among the Plymouth thrOng,
| Judge Nelson entered the court room
few minutes before the hour of opening.
| The Judge said under the circumstances


he was compelled, in an examination Of
! the affidavits, To deny the application for


reopening the case, and in accordance


with Beechers request the papers were
| fled with the clerk of court. Judge


Nelson then stated that the jury might


retain their seats, if they so desired,
while he delivered 10 them the


charge. After congratulating the jury
on approaching the close of their labors,
| and saying that he had habtually re-
framed from stating his own opinions on
questions of fact. He said: 1t Is your
duty to accept fully and without shade


of mental reservation, the rules of law
stated, but on the other hand ! wish TO
pay like degree OF respect to your


great office You are sole Judges of the


weight of the testimony; Of credIblIIy OF


witnesses. A sense of thi, restraIns me


from commenting ON the proofs at large,


and from indicating to you what my own


opinions may be on questions


OF fact. Your recognition OF that rs your
relation to the court and the cause Is due


to the oath YOU have taken to render
true verdict according TO the evidence.
The moral force Of verdict depends


largely on the fact that it is the un biased
Judgment of twelve men selected from


the body of our citizens, and in the most
solemn form known TO our laws, con.e-
Grated to its service.


He then stated that the counsel had eX-
tracted so much testimony from the III


witnesses, that if he was to quote it to
them, they would not reach their deliber-
ations until days hence. Weary
and exhausted the pleading had been


stated in their hearing, and they under
stood that the charge of adultery lay ut
the bottom OF it. The Judge said some
of the testimony relates to the principal
questions in issue; some OF it to credit
due to certain witnesses and some OF IL
to the mere question of damage The
! pleading has been stated in your hearing
and YOU perceive the charge of adultery
is denied by the answer that hes ut the


foundation of the case. Upon the issue
thus Joined, the burden Of proof rests on
the plaintiff You are also to understand
the evidence should BE such as to carry
conviction to the minds of just and pru-
deryt men; 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
II char.;e is not usually proved or indeed
provable by direct and positive evidence.
The reason is obvious. In most instan-
ces when, under social restraints, an ap-
pacently proper intimacy degenerates
into licentious acts, the evil intent and
lif,, put on the garb of innocence to such
ca, ,es, TO all cases of doubt and difficulty,
th,, law of evidence searching and tiexi-
bio, applies peculiar tests, presumptlons,
and from inferences drawn from facts,
al from cond Net, according to the die
tate of experience, so that finally the
qu estion of guilt or innocence may be
determined by jury IN the light reflected
by surrounding circumstances. A lew
simple illustrations stated with reference
to case OF this character may enable
you to understand sufficiently for the
present purpose the difference between
direct, circumstantial and presumptive
evidence. If witness should testify
that he had seen the actual commission
OF the sexual act charged 1t would be
what is called direct and positive owl
deBce; If a witne IS should testify that
hn u. a h. hul tnI
the same room all nj ght, IN such man.
ner as tended to the conclusion that they
had slept together, or If he had admitted
his guilt, that would be circumstantial
evidence; if to Letter received by the
defendant, explicitly charging him with
adultery, he answered simply saying,


L am Sorry and Hope 10 be Forgiven,
or if on being thus charged in conver-
Sation by one having an interest IN the
matter, he had made no answer what
ever, that by Il natural process of reason
ing would be presumptive evidence. The
Judge said circumStan tial evidence must
be acted on very cautiously. Evidence
bearing on the principal question, that
of adultery, may be taken up IN
its order, thus First, as to The writing
referred to; second, as to the oral admis-
sion; third, as to the tacit or implied ad.
mission; and fourth, as 10 the general
conduct of the defendant. | propose
briefly to call your attention 10 some OF
the more important matters falling un-
der each of these heads. Your conclu-
sions should not be drawn from one OF
the>s, classes of evidence, but from all
testimony on this branch of the case COM
biped. On taking up the writings refer
red t. YOU will observe that the plain
tins letter of the 26th OF December, 1870,
demanding that the defendant should
leave the pulpit and city, was the first
open act of hostility. That demand was
withdrawn at an interview On
December 30, 1870, the plaintiff claims
that that WAS in Difference to the wishes
OF his wife. At that time paper writ
ten by Mrs. Tilton in respect to her TelH-
tions to the defendant WAS held by Mr..
Moulton; the copy o. 1t which plMntlii
had was torn up after having been read
to the defendant, and the original was
also torn up afterwards by Mrs. Tilton
with her husbands assent; that sam"
evening Beecher with the assent of the
husband called on Mrs. Tilton; he then
obtained the paper commonly called the
"retraction," winch was afterwards sur
rendered to Moulton. The next paper
in order is that of July l, 1871. 1t is in
Moulton's writing except the lines at
the bottom and the signature written by
Beecher, question of fact in dispute,
As to this paper, il deserves your atten-
tion. Mr. Moulton says that 1t was die
tsted sentence by sentence and that 1t