New-York tribune., 1874-11-12
BROOKLYN SCANDAL SUITS.
HOW THE FIVE MAIN CASES NOW STAND.

HOW THE FIVE MAIN CASES NOW STAND.
PROBABILITY THAT THE TILroS SUIT FOX DAMAGES
WILL BE POSTPONED EVEN fF TnE Af1EAI DE
DENIED-MR. -EvARrs's NGsGEMENTs-raroKr-
ANcE OF THE ORDER OF rHE CAsEs-HoW MRS,
TMToN's TESTIMONY CAN BIZ USED.
There are now five cases in which the cir
custances OF tho Brooklyn scandal to directly
before the courts. These are: Mr.. Ton's civil suit
against Mr. Beecher for SEQ 600 damages the civil SUIT
for libel against Francis b. Moulton. brought In tho
United States Court by Miss Ina Dean Proctor the
criminal case in which Mr.. rlton is indicted for
maciousy ibeling DIR. Beecher. and the two criminal
cases in which Mr.. Mouton is indicted for malicious
libel one indictment being libel OF Miss Proctor and
the other for libel OF Mr. Beecher. All OF these cases.
except the suit for damages brought against Mr..
Mouton by Miss Proctor, are to be tried In the
Brooklyn City Court Tie only one Of the actions
in which a day is set for trial is Mr..
Tltons suit against Mr. Beecher for damages, and the
day appointed for that is Wednesday next Mr.
Beechers lawyers are r. G. shearman. VIM. NJ Evar's,
John X Porter, Benjamin F. Tracy, John L. Hill, and
Austin Abbott, the last-named acting IN an ADVISORY
capacity rather than taking active part Mr. Tltons
lawyers are ex-Judge Wm Fullerton. Wm. a. Beach,
Samuel ID. Morris, Thomas Pearsall, ana Roger A.
Pryor.
1t generally admitted that there is little probability
OF the trial beginning on Wednesday Argument on an
appeal by Mr. Beecher's counsel from the decision OF
Judge Nelson who refused to grant order to require
MT Tltons counsel to furnish bill OF particulars, de-
failing fully the times and places OF the oenses which
the plaintiffs complaint charges Mr. Beecher with COM
mitng, is set down for hearing In the General Term OF
the Brooklyn City Court tomorrow. Counsel for Mr.
Beecher assert that it is plain to every lawyer who
has looked into the matter that the order ought
to be granted while opposing counsel declare that
it entirely plain than it should not be granted III the
order is granted tune will be required to enable plain
counsel to prepare and defendants counsel to con-
slider the bill particulars and the case will probably
be deferred this. Ii the order is refused ana tDefe
is no cause for delay that account, Mr. shearman
SAYS that it is not certain that Mr. Evartss engage
ments before the Supreme Court at Washington Will
allow OF his presence in Brooklyn on wednesday as
engagements la the Supreme Court cannot give way TO
engagements in other courts. Counsel for Mr.. Ilton
declare the positive terms that they are ready
TO 20 on with the at this day, and are anxious
TO have 1t pressed forward fast possible. It Is
asserted by some OF Mr. Beechers friends that the pro-
essIons OF Mr. T0ns counsel of readiness and anxiety
go with the insincere and intended TO IN
nucuce the public. Others, more moderate and
thoroughly well informed declare a belief that both
sides are bottom desrous OF further delay desiring
the largest opportunity for the most thorough prepaI
tion In a case OF such magnitude.
Mr. T,on's friends declare that the prospect OF delay
threatens Mr. Beechers side, and from that side
only and that the cannot be STAYED of more than
few weeks at most whatever efforts may DE maze 10
that end Counsel for the defendant do not expect tha
Judge Reynolds will occupy the bench next Wednesday
when the trial appointed TO begin. because OF his
former connection Mr. Tilton his adviser IN the
laters differences with Mr.. Bowen, although the ap'
peal with reference TO the bill OF particulars must be
argued before him OF the judges in tho General
Term IL Judge Reynolds should SIT next Wednesday
upon this case objection may be made by Mr.. Beecher's
counsel.
oiriiS nd he udi "a
tom only cxJudge Fullerton and Samuel ID. Morris are
yet named counsel for the defendant but others VIII
appear whose names are kept back for the present.
District-Attorney Wnsow on Monday moved that Mr..
Moulton plead the indictment for the alleged libel on
Miss Proctor and that day be set for his trial, aud
suggested the third Monday Of this month MI Moul-
tons counsel urged that the criminal cause be delayed
until after trial of the civil suit for the same libel IN
The United States Court, and Judge Reynolds decided
not to appoint day during the present term for the
trial criminal cause, as he expected that MT Ill
tons civil suit against Mr. Becchcr would take up
much OF the time OF the court during the present
term formal plea of /" not guilty was submitted By
Mr. Mouton through counsel on Tuesday II Is claimed
by Mr. Ttons partisan tnat e eCp' nor 20 pres Prnco m
libel ATTEMPT TO divert impatient attention from
d ai NAM 20 nosse TO secure Mr Monltons conviction and
thus dscredt him witness ii Mr. Tlton's slt Tor
damages. Mr.. TOn's counsel asked thaf oay DE- SET
fur the trial on the criminal Indictment against MI.
Titon for alleged libel on Mr.. Beecher claiming That
Mr Beechers partsans claim tnat tnis eagtrhss @ as
is somewhat affected aud that one reason wnY nir
ssan1t ai0ni Mr. MSaiton is that Mrs; TItOn,s test
against her husband, but can testify IN the
against Mr. Mouon Another sIesestl9n s % IRON
counsel to 20 forward immediately III the case Oh Nr
Ion against Mr. Beecher Is due to the Wish TO 1sot o
snt the of Miss Proctor against NJ Momon
for damages for alleged libel is tried as Mr. MQutOn
Ia cl
might lose weight with the public or WIN the Jury.
~ claimed by Mr.. Tton's opponents that this view Of
be matter is streug thened Dy the character % Mr..
Moultons flied III the United States Court Mon
cse eay to M Proctor in Mr. M"ultons statement is
sought shifted from Air Moulion to Mr. Bsecher,
and that this shows IN Mr. Mouton lack OF Confluence
in the strength OF his defense. . .
No motion has yet made for the appointment OF
day ior trial OF NJ MUuitOn on ne INDICTMENT iOr
alleged libel Mr. Beccher This indictment was
found after the for alleged libel on Miss Ploetoi.
criminal cause for the civil suit against Mr. MOuton
IN the United States Court 1t Is asserted by some VINO
speak for Mr.. Triton mat the ia OF nis M GIVld su
against Mr.. Beechcr would II concluded before e our
causes are brought by lts result PoEen t In & u NJ ~
ton may testify in the sait for damages against Mr.
Beecher although sne cannot be called Dy tue plAlh'A
But ii evidence is introduced OF aieSeu ~
adultery with Mr. Bercner made by her. Is NOT unlikely
that she be called by tile defense TO TESTIFY con-
cernng such alleged confessions. ,,
fl Is asserted by gentleman who has had exceptional
opportunities for information Wlth regard to tho pIo
rfss OF these affairs in Brooklyn that 0vertures for
settlement of the difficulties involved without the tal
Of Mr. Tilton and Mr. Moulton. and that the answer
was made that nothing less tBan the eOmpiete WIN
r,v,1 of nil the charges made bv Mr.. Tlton and Mr..
Mouton would be pied basis Of settlement to
which reonGer said TO have been MADE tha ever
that might possibly be arranged. GA the Olher hauu'
twn Of Mr. TitOn's counsel asserted yesterday Ia the
strongest and most sweeping terms tit 10 propQ ion
Sor settIrmcnl mad been made by any authorized
D for Mr. Tton by any Of his counsel, or by Mr
r,pn himsn and that the determination to press his
t aains Nj Baec Ier 10 the end with the LEASE delay
possible i fixed and unalteraOie.
---------