Year: 1875

(ilueus Ii Luc NIOLS "ns aduibCiy VIZ
solution of what followed is easy, but if
wrongs or offences, actual or imputed
were of the character stated, then just
of the relation between the
state Of mind and his con-
duet involves several considerations.
What was his personal estimate OF his
relation to the Church, the world, to lit
erature, and the reputation he should
leave behind him; what his conception
of the nature and gravity of the charge
of impure solicitations of alternating
woman's love from her husband, and
of the effect of such accusations il pub
licly made what was his notion OF the
extent to which Tilton had been injured
as journalist, IN his family, and as to
their means Of subsistence.


The Judge next called the attention Of
the jury to the


Credit Due 10 the Witnesses,


and referred Us follows to Moulton's cCn-
nection to the case. Mr.. Moulton seems
to have interviewed us the open and
avowed friend of Tilton; he appears to
have undertaken to mediate between the
parties to reconcile and AS far as possible
to prevent the specific character of their
differences from obtaining publicity. He
states that such was the real purpose and
character of his Intervention; and the
defendant in his letters and otherwise
has borne large and generous testimony
to that effect. Yet Mr.. MoultOn on
various occasions, us he himself testi-
fes, and as other witnesses state
that the defendant was not guilty OF SEX
uai intercourse which he now says had
been admitted. 1t is now considered
how far his statement goes to
discredit him. II you should be of the
opinion that he intended 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
YOU are at liberty to make
such allowance for that as seem proper.
As to Mr.. Tilton, you will consider
whether his testimony to the confession
of the defendants guilt can be reconciled
with his previous declarations that his
wife was innocent.


The Peculiar Theory


which he has explained to you has been
sufficiently illustrated by counsel, and
should be accepted AS far as you think
proper. As to the testimony Of Emma
c. Moulton, it is claimed that there is an
inherent probability in the supposition
that lady of her conieS-
Ied refinement and delicacy would
have conyersed so freely with defendant
as to his adultery, or undertaken to ad-
wise him on that subject. 1t is also said
that on the occasion when she claims to
have had an important interview with
the defendant, he was not Mt her house.
You will consider and apply proof which
stands in conflict, and in ccrro0ora-
ton. In the discussion that proof
has been reconciled and illustrated
so fully, | have but to COM
mend it to your careful consideration.
Did she at or about the time stated have
that interview and was the conversation
substantially as given by her? If so,
and if she were in error as to the length
of the interview that mere incident
would not be conclusive of the question.
Two other observations may be proper.
Had Mrs. Moulton got the impression
that defendants guilt was adultery and
in her conversation regarded that as the
subject in his mind rs it was in her mind?
Do YOU believe that whether mistaken
ur not she testified honestly? Her man
ner on the stand and the opinion
which the defendant himself had
of her moral character and
worth, as stated in his letters, COM
mend her to your respect. ! had occa-
sion to state in your hearing, my view OF
the suggestion that this witness testified
ut the will or instruction of her hus band.
| still hold to the opinion then express
ed. There is no proof of artlcltice or
coercion or undue influence. The fact,
however, that her husband is deeply con-
cerned 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 counsel. She is sustaining her
husband as witness. As to the witness
Kate Carey, it Is proper to state that per-
sons called to prove an alleged bad char
acter for truth and vcracity should have
general knowledge, to be
fairly deemed competent, and
impeachment is weak in the proper
ton. as the circle in which the untayora-
Bile opinion prevails, is narrow.


The Question OF Damages