I’ll try.

In divorce proceedings, it sometimes happens that a husband, brings an action against his wife, on the ground of her adultery with a named co-defender. There is some independent evidence against both the wife and the co-defender, but not sufficient to justify a positive finding of guilt. The wife, however, makes a full confession. Here the court may very reasonably pronounce a decree against the wife, while concluding that the adultery is not established as against the co-defender. Indeed, to hold otherwise would be to lay it down that the admission or confession of the wife – which may be quite untrue and which may be induced by hidden and private motives – is to be treated as good evidence against the co-defender. And so it happens that the court may quite reasonably conclude that it is proved that the wife has committed adultery with the co-defender, but not that the co-defender has committed adultery with the wife.

The same thing could well happen in criminal proceedings, where adultery is a crime.

As to unequal application, one recalls that, even in divorce actions, the confessions of the wife, defender, coupled with some independent evidence, not otherwise conclusive, may warrant the Court in finding that adultery is proved against her, while, her confessions not being evidence against the co-defender, he escapes; and thus divorce may be granted against the wife for adultery committed by her with him, while he himself is assoilzied from the action. This is particularly likely in jurisdictions that apply the criminal standard of proof in consistorial actions – proof beyond reasonable doubt and on corroborated evidence.

I should have thought the like results in criminal cases would be inevitable.

No. They will just shock them with the absolute horror of their disapproval.