Year: 1875

Hunt Upa Verdict.


The Beecher Trial-The Charge to


the Jury.


New YORK, juno pa. the op-
ening Of the Bcecher tfial this morn
ing, Judge Nelson said that under
circumstances he was compelled in
an examination of afidavits, to deny
the application for re.opening the
case, and in accordance with Beach's
request they were were filed with the
clerk Of the court.


He then stated the jury might re.
main in the court room if they desir
ed while he delivered the charge to
them. After congratulatipg the jury
on the approaching close Of their la.
bors and saying that he had happily
rcfrained from stating his own opin.
ions on questions Of faith, he said:
This honor it is your duty TO accept
fully and without shade of mental
reservation the whole of the law stat.
ed, but on the other hand wish to
pay little mark Of respect to your
great Office. You are the sole Judges
of the weight Of the testimony Of wit
nesses, and of this I will refrain from
commenting on the proofs at large, and
leave it to what your opinion may be.


Your recognition Of that as
your relation to the court and
to the cause is due to the oath
you have taken to render a true
verdict according to the evidence.
The recognition of it is due not only
to you but to these parties, as the
moral force Of verdict depends
largely on the fact that it is the un-
biased Judgment Of the twelve men
selected from the body Of our people,
and in the most solemn form known
10 our laws, consccrated to the ser.
vice. Some Of the testimony is due
to the principal question in issue;
some Of it to the credit due to your
witnesses; some of it to the mere
question Of damages. Pleadings have
been stated in your hearing, and you
have the charge of adultery denied
by the defendant. 1t lies at the
foundation of the case. Upon
the issue thus joined, the burden of
proof rests on the plaintiff. Judge
Nelson said: A few simple illus
trations 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 evi,
dence. If . witness should testify
that he had seen the actual commits.
sion of the sexual act charged, it
would be what is called direct and
positive evidence; if . witness should
testify that the wife and the paramour
(defendant) had occupied the same
room all night in such manner Is
tended to the conclusion that they had
slept together, that would be circum.
stantial evidence : il to q letter re-
ceived by the defendant, explicitly
charging him with the adultery he
answered simply" I am sorry,
aud hope to be forgiven" or if on
being this charged in conversation
by one having an interest in the mat
ter, he had made no answer whatever,
that, BY natural process of reasoning,
would be presumptive evidence. Cir.
cumstantial evidence must be accept
ed very cautiously. Evidence bear.
ing on the principal question, that OF
adultery, may be takes up in order
Thus, FIRST as to the wrong referred
to; secondly, as to oral testimony;
third, as to the letter of admission
aud further as to the general conduct
OF defendant. l purpose briefly ito
call your attention to some of the
more important matters falling under
each of these heads. Your conclu,
sions. should not be drawn from one
of thes classes Of evidence, but from
all the testimony on this branch o