Green Mountain Freeman

Judge Neilson's Charge.

He said there was much in the evidence of all witnesses examined, the consideration of which he would spare the jury. The charge of adultery was the foundation of the case. He explained the distinction between direct, circumstantial or presumptive evidence. The inferences which the jury might draw must spring from the facts as fruit from the vine. Four classes of evidence were given in support of the charge: Written papers, oral admissions, tacit or implied, admissions and the general conduct of the defendant; and the conclusions of the jury must be drawn not from one of these but from all.

THE EVIDENCE REVIEWED,

Taking up the testimony in this order the Judge briefly described the nature of the testimony as to the letter of accusation and the letter of apology. He reminded the jury of Beecher's disclaimer of the authorship of the letter, and remarked that sometimes under excitement men speak in a way that would surprise those who know them. Beecher's letters of remorse were to be considered in connection with all the circumstances. The evidence as to oral admissions was contradicted by the defendant. As to implied admissions, all men do not act alike, but the presumption is that if a man is unjustly accused he will deny the charge. The jury would have to exercise great caution if they had any doubt as to the accuracy of witnesses' remembrance of words attributed to the defendant, for in such cases a single word might be essential. It was for the jury to say whether when the defendant received plaintiff's letter demanding his resignation and the defendant said, 'The man is crazy,' he was acting in a manner that showed consciousness of guilt. They would have to scrutinize Beecher's conduct throughout, the policy of the silence period, and the timidity and vacillation displayed throughout, and to inquire whether he took any part in sending Bessie Turner away and if so, for what reason; and whether it was from a sense of guilt he refused to answer the question of Mrs. Bradshaw, or in accordance with an agreed upon policy of silence, which policy appears to have been also that of the defendant's church.

In connection with Beecher's conduct they were to consider that a man may be accused of ten crimes and fly because he is guilty of one, and his flight would be no proof of the guilt of the rest. A meretricious lover found concealed under a bed cannot be convicted of burglary with intent to steal. The jury were to consider whether the defendant's remorse could be accounted for by misapprehension as to his advice to Bowen having caused injury to Tilton. As to the credibility of witnesses, that was a matter wholly with the jury, but they were to remember the distinction between a falsehood uttered without guilt and a lie with the knowledge of its falsehood, and too much importance should not be given to discrepancies, for these occur even when witnesses are doing their best to state facts accurately. They were to reconcile, if they could, Moulton's declarations here and his statements made outside that Beecher was not guilty, and Tilton's evidence with his declarations that his wife was pure, and whether Mrs. Tilton testified honestly believing that Beecher's offence was adultery, and supposing that this was the subject in his mind when he conversed with her.

As to Tracy acting as counsel against Tilton and also testifying, he had consulted his distinguished associates before doing so, and thus his course was strongly contrasted with those of the attorney referred to by counsel for the plaintiff besides no professional relation had existed between Tracy and Tilton, they were not counsel and client.

THE QUESTION OF DAMAGES,

On the question of damages the Judge said he would call attention to it merely that they might recognize in the proper degree where the mass of testimony comes in as to the plaintiff's loss of his wife's affections, and on the other hand testimony as to plaintiff being unfaithful as a husband. The defendant was entitled to the benefit of the consideration that the intimacy between pastor and parishioner is of greater latitude than the intimacy with an ordinary acquaintance.

The question of conspiracy and black-mail was dismissed, with the remark that there was no proof whatever to sustain allegations of that character. In reference to Mrs. Woodhull, and Tilton's intimacy with her, the Judge said she might be fraught we know the subject of criticism, and she might be merely an intellectual woman, carried away by some extravagant genius. The jury were not to attach any weight to Beecher's acquittal by his committee, and on the other hand they were not to consider the advisory counsel of churches, held here, was in any sense a prosecution of Beecher by two churches which were dissatisfied with the proceedings of Plymouth Church.

The Judge then took up the requests to charge and instruct the jury that the defendant was not bound to prove his innocence. He declined to charge that they must be satisfied beyond all reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt before they could find against him, for this was a peculiarity of criminal suits. He instructed them that the higher the crime the more stringent should be their scrutiny of the evidence. In another proposition he struck out the word actual before guilt on the ground that guilt is actual, and he did not care to load it with adjectives. He also charged that the destruction of the paper which would be important as evidence raised the presumption that it would be unfavorable to the party who destroyed it. He declined to charge that moral evidence is not sufficient to support a legal certainty. He charged that the defendant's avoidance of publicity to the charge raised was no presumption of guilt and that his letter of contrition did not impart adultery on its face or prove it, for it did not specify an act real or supposed that the party had it in his mind and that the same remark applies to other letters of the defendant. The fact of the plaintiff's silence for six months after the alleged confession was to be considered, but in connection with the question whether his silence was due to his wife's request.

Having disposed of the requests, the Judge inquired, 'gentlemen, are you content?' and Mr. Beach answered, 'We are sir.'