New-York tribune., 1874-12-14
THE SCANDAL SUITS.
APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF JUDGE
MCCUE,

APPEAL FROM THE ORDER OF JUDGE
MCCUE.
THE CASE GOES OVER UNTIL JANUARY 4. 1S75-TnR
PROCTOR SETTLEMENT.
The order Of Judge McCue granting Mf.
Beechcr's counsel bill Of particulars OF The specific
oenses charged against their client In the civh su
Theodore Tton aud tho order of the city Court poss
poning the trial of tho until Jan. next, were
fled Friday last. already stated THE TRIBUNE
On Saturday morning the counsel for Mr. Tlton. who
had contemplated tho of another suit IN
the Supreme Court in anticipation Of mzch moro strin-
gent order Judge McCue nled resolved 70 sppol
from tho order, and accordingly gave tho tssal eight
days notice intention. Tie notice Is dated
December a. unless the opposing counsel agree TO
enter upon the argument at once Is will be heard on
Dec 2 to-day week.
Tie following Is the order Of Judge MoCue. ofciaHy
entered In Court. from which the plaintiff appeas'
On reading and fling the afsfavit Of Thomas q.
shesrmau, verified Dec T. 1874. ana tho athisvit Of
Theodore Tton, verihed Dec 10 1874 on the part Ut
on Dec. 7. 1874. aud the remitler from tho Curt u
Appeals upon tue appeal from the order heretofore
ticaIars and alter hearing William NJ Evarts Thon.s
G. s9earman. and Gem Tracy OF soanss! i1r aesldaat
That tne plaintiff furnish to the defeniaurs attorney.
within three days OF the tune o. tho seryce OF sop
by the oath Of the plantf, setting forth t1e particular
e and places s sas ne eap aesy 90
the defrudant ana tue wife OF tns paia eurh desg-
nation TO be made as indicated in she decision on hv
and that the plaintiff be and he Lereby Is pieeiaasd
Offering evidence at tho trial OF this ae.on 70
any other iine or place than sacG as sna
In the said statements Of particulars. Bat tn ora
not to be construed as prohibiting tue pLih',a ro Ia
Producing on the trial of tnis action testimony whch
may be admissible under tue general rules oL cvuehco
writings, Documents or any ALLEGED CONCESSIONS Oh tho
part the defendant Of ANY such criminal, wron.nor
Improper In which alleged confessions no pdr.icuar
time place shan be alleged " have Oeen feiersed .o
The order appears have given great satisfaction to
Mr.. Deechors lawyers. although somewhat Ino1inca
from the submitted aud asked for be'ides contain
Ing the qualifying clause requested by the plaintiff.
Each side coustrues Its meaning differently. azd tho
appeal partly settle Its precise import to the salts
faction Of Tltons lawyers. Mr.. BeecheT's counsel hold
that 1t conues the testimony 10 evidence as to tie two
datos in the month OF October, 1863 which are all tne
occasions Mr. TllfOn admits he name with anything
approaching certainty. The introduction OF Testimony
of any confessions of Mr. Beecher to Others or the pro
sentaon any documents declarations must DO oor-
fined to such relate to these two dates. or to tire
month of October This would virtually throw out much
of the testimony OF Mr.. aud Mrs. Mouiton. aud pro-
ably rome OF the letters OF Mr. Beecler, aud any
evidence OF Mrs. Bradshaw, Miss Thton, and other's
TO whom Mrs. Tlton lnot Mr.. Beecher. erroheousiJ
printed) may bave made confessions. The cou@-
sci Of Mr. TtOn. It Is understood. coDstrue
Judge McCue's order to that tIlal the main
Issue shall be, whether adultery was committed by
defendant, but whether 1t was committed on or about
the dates and at the places specified in the bill OF par
cuars ordered be furnished and that no evidence
eau given which does not bear upon this ISSUE Con-
LESSONS, writings. &C., tending " show adulteous In
tercourse but In which specific date or place Is men
toned, are left admissible by the opinion OF Judge Mo
Cue but only to serve as general evidence taat tue
criminal acts were committed by drfendant ON tho
specific dates and places named In the bill VI partcu-
lars and not to enable the jury to ad him guilty gen
orally"
TIE PROCTOR SETTLEMENT.
After the conclusion OF the court proceedings
In the Proctor case against Mr. Moult0D, ant
while the plaintiff and her friends aud tho
counsel were waiting for the referee 10 begin
the Investigation. 1t Is stated that Miss Proctor
charged Gen. Butler will the responsibility of dragging
her name into the scandal He had acted rs MouiioDs
counsel before the publication. and ADVISED the pusi
cation Of the part OF his statement referring to her,
although he knew that roofs lad been furnished Mr.
Moult0n before her publication that he was W.T. ng IN
what he had threatened TO publish. Gen. Butler. IN
reply, claimed that Mr.. Moton had without believing
the story simply told It as coming TO hun from Mr.
Beecher Miss Proctor 1t is stated secuted the idea that
Mr.. Beecher had made any such statement.
1t Will be remembered that Mr. MoultOn in publishing
the statement referring to Miss Proctor asserted that 1t
was made to him by Mr. Beecher in the presence Of
third person. From subsequent utterances of Mr. Mou
ton this unnamed witness thought to be his wife,
it out since the Issue has been seted 10
have been Mr. Tiltoa.
Mr.. Beechers indignation at the conclusion Of the
Proctor SUIT without giving him opportunity to
testify that had told the story 10 Moulton, as
already described In THE TRIBUNE so great that nc
prepared an affidavit with the intention OF reoprninx
the and presented it TO Mr silimaD the referee.
the morning after the settled before the ref
cree had left his evidence. II. s,ed In this rindNit
he In ante-roOm OF the Court expecting 10
be called TO testify. and was greatly astonianed when
not allowed to do MI sini al replied ai ho could
open the ease, and Mr. Beecncr raid ne should hen
apply to the Court drccl. From tbis ne was nnaJ
di,sgded by his counsel tae favorable conclusion
OF the argument before Judge MeCue, Ia which IL viii
be remembered much OF Iituu's ttstlmony Was uh.
masked. Mr. Bepcnpr then resolved 10 publish o brief
statement To the public denying emphaticaiy having 10
apy communicated the Story pus
lished by MOultou but he Is understood also " have
been dissuaded from this.