Year: 1875

far his statement goes to discredit him,
II you shall be OF opinion that he intend
ed to state the truth in his examination
here, and that his previous declarations
were inspired by spirit Of loyalty to the
defendants reputation and to that Of Mrs.
Tilton, and from an earnest wish to divert
the minds OF others from the subject in
carrying out the policy Of suppression
adopted, you are at liberty to make such
allowance for that rs seems proper. As to
Mr., Tilton, you will consider whether his
testimony to


CONFESSION OF THE DEFENDANTS GUILT
can be reconciled with his previous decla-
rations that his wife was innocent, The
peculiar theory which he has explained
10 You has been sufficiently illustrated by
counsel, and can be accepted as far as you
think proper. As to the testimony Of
Emma {. Moulton, il IL claimed that there
Is an inherent imprObability in the sup
position that q lady Of her confessed re-
fnement and delicacy would have con-
yersed so freely with the defendant as to
his adultery, or undertaken to advise him
on that subject. 1t Is also said that on
the occasion when she claims to have had
an important interview with the defend
ant he was not at her house. You will
consider and apply the proof which stands
In conflict and in corrOboration. In
the decisions that proof has been recon-
ciled and illustrated SO fully that have
but to commend 1t to your careful con-
sideration. Did she at or about tho time
stated have that interview, and was the
conversation substantially as given by
her2 II so, and she were In error as to
the length Of the interview, that mere In
cident would not be conclusive. The
question, gentlemen, rests with you. Two
other observations may be proper.


MRS. MouLroN's TESTIMONY.


Had Mrs. Moulton got the impression
that the defendants guilt was adultery
and In her conversation regarded that rs
the subject In his mind as 1t was in her
mind2 Do you believe that whether q
mistake or not she testified honestly?
Her manner on the stand aud the
opinion which the defendant himself
had OF her moral character and
worth Us stated in his letters commend
her to your respect. had occasion to
state in your herring my view Of the sug-
gestion that this witness testified at the
will or instruction OF the husband, still
hold to the opinion then expressed there
Is no proof Of artiiice or coercion, or
undue influence. The fact however that
her husband Is deeply concerned In this
controversy, and that her testimony,
without repeating, COncurs with his,
Is to be considered on the mere question
Of bias. In sustaining the plaintiffs cause
she Is sustaining her husband as q wit
ness. As to the witness Kate Carey il Is
proper to state that the persons called
to prove an alleged bad character, for
truth and vcrncity should have general
knowledge, to be fairly derived from the
OpiniOus expressed by the people who
know the witness. Such an impeOch-
ment Is weak in proportion, as the circle
In which the unfavOrable opinion pre-
walls Is narrow, and as that opinion can
be traced to special difficulties.


As to another witness, benjamin +.
Tracy, two suggestions have been made
the first that, having acted as counsel for
the defendant, he should not have been
called US witness for him in the case; the
second that, owing to an arrangement
with or promise to the plaiptiif lie should
not have acted as said counsel. The Judge
commented at length upon Tracy's case
and said: have only to add that


MY OWN VIEW


of the propriety Of the course pursued
by Mr.. Tracy agrees with that Of his aE-
sOCiate counsel In the cause. think
with them that there has been no viola.
ton Of duty on his part, personal or pro-
iesSional.


The question Of damages was next con.
sidered, the Judge calling the attention Of
the Jury to the large amount Of evidence,
including the plaintiffs alleged miscon-
duct ut home and abroad, peculiar to this
mere question Of damage. Such miscon-
duct may reduce the amount Of recovery,
but Ia no defense to the action. Some
other features Of the case remain to be
noticed


UPON PRINCIPLE AND AUTHORITY,
and also with reference to our accepted
rules OF social order. The intimacy and
intercourse which Is allowed between n
married woman and her legal adviser,
physician or pastor is greater than that
which would be considered proper or be.
coming between a woman and man hold.
ing no such special relation. That prin-
ciple applies here, and the defendant Is
entitled to the benefit Of IT, We are wont
to say that all suitors are treated alike,
and In most respects they are, but yet In
a case Of this character, man grown old
In prayer and pions service has, primd
tacie, the benefit Of presumption which
the mere man Of the world has not.


Mr.. BeeCher's advances Of money,
which, through Mr.. Moulton, went to the
benefit Of Mr. Tilton and family, appear
to have been mere acts Of generosity.
That money was not extorted by Mr..
MOulton, nor docs II appear to have been
the fruit Of any improper articles. Al
though IL Is not Of any special moment, |
tnlnklt proper tOhuy lnut uHCOHtFnulCleu
evidence shows that Mr.. Tilton did not
know that he was benefited by Mr..
DeeCher.


We HAVE BEFORE Us NO EVIDENCE
which could support the charges Of con.
spiracy and blackmail, and II we had the
Defendants position would remain the
same, II innocent, to be declared so indie.
pendent Of such nrtilices. The nearest
approach to blackmail would seem to
have arisen between Tilton and Bowen,
II the former did threaten to publish n
card injurious to the latter Unless money
we're paid; but we have no interest in
that question. Moreover he did not
publish the card, nor was he paid until
after due course Of investigation. II
seems that the covenant Of Bowen and
Tilton in respect to mpensatiOn for ser.
vice on two papers provided for certain
payments on d termination Of employ.
mcnt before the end Of the term, and
that the claims or disputes should be de.
termined BY arbitration. In the notices
Of dismissal put in evidence Mr. Bowen
proposed that mode Of adjustment, which
he had legal right to stand on. He did


Al a.