The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-01-27
Afternoon Dispatches
nEECMER.TILTON.

party hNlV hkllt uAt ht'
was on hand in usual good time.
Mr.. MOulton resumed his place on the
witness stand and was Crogs-examined by
General Tracy, assisted by Judge Porter.
The witness was handed q letter dated
February 10, II, and said ! saw this
letter before II was brought by Beecher TO
my house in Clinton StFeet, 1T was the
subject ofiCoayersatioh .hetWeen Beecher
and myself, but do not think Tilton was
then present, The letter was introduced
in evidence and received by Mr., Shear
man. 1t was from r. b, Perkins, q
nephew Of Beechcr, TO Beecher, telling
hun le.Aid, not think IiltOn could bGtsp
Base % 70 maxi these sChSrgss; but u
doing 80 Mr.. 'TiltOn had dived into
tho sub.cellar Of the back.hOuSe Of In
fanny. Another letter was then shown to
witness, which he identified ~ the answer
sent by liceCher to the above, implying
that TiltOn and himself were both vic.
tins Of Islander, but that they were now
both good friends,
At this point q message was brought
10 Monitor, and hG asked permission 10
leave the court room, which was ac-
corded, On his return, he stated that
he had just received intelligence Of the
death oil his mother. The defence and
prosecution both wishing 10 finish with
him to-day, and allow him to go, MoultOn
again resumed .'I'l p "
Do not know how TiltOn got copy Of
lleechcr's letter Of February 8, 1879. lie
cOuld not have taken n copy In short
hand In my presence. Probably II he
he had wanted u copy ! would have lot
him taken one. Do not know how he
got copy Of Beecher'! letter Of June LIST
or February 7th, 1871. think Beecler
gave TihOh q COpyof Mr., llOOkOr's letter
OfNovenlher lsl, 1879. Witness attell-
ton was called to his Interview with
Mr.. IIceCher on or prior to Janu-
AIRY 10, 1871, when the conversation
was had IN reference TO BOwpn's charges,
und he was asked II he had stated all
that occurred at that interview. The
witness replied that he hal stated all he
now remembered. Witness was shown n
letter, null he said II wW tho only letter
no had INV Of Mr., Clark; did not remem.
ber having destroyed any letters he re.
Ceived from Clark, and could not tell
whether he showed this one to lIecChcr or
not. NAH
Clark was assistant editor Of the Golden
Ilge, and employed by rilton. This letter
was offered IN evidence by lieecher's cOun-
sci, who argued that evidence lIad been
adduc cd during the trial tending to show
that This WINS The letter shown To lieCCher,
and that WA the reason lie offered 1t In
evidence. Witness had also stated that
this letter was the sub ject Of conversation
between him and l'eGcller. llesllbmitted
II because he thought II would show tho
condition Of affairs In the Golden Ige
Office, and that this was the Subje Of the
talk between N[0ultOp and lIeecher.
Mr.. Fullerton argued that Moulton had
received several letters from Clark some
Of which witness said had been destroyed,
this one being the only letter found
and that the counsel on the other
side therefore inferred this us the letter
which formed the subject Of conversation
on that OCCASION. Ng.s.s.s
Judge NELSON suid the counsel for
Defendant would have to connect this
letter more definitely with that Interview.
The counsel on bOtli sides read abstracla
from the previous examination NOf the.
witness. The court ruled ont the letter
and the exception waS taken by the de.
iGnSe.
Witness continued--llad u talk with
I}ecclier about what Clark had said about
the Golden Age; do not remember telling
Beccller that Clark said he had tried 10
get some person To- purchase Che GQIdet
Ave-, but had failed; nor do | recolltct
telling him that Clark said he had
been blamed for being connected with
such paper or such men; do not
remember telling him the name Of the
Editor WIS like a milbEone III the pa-
pcrs. These questions were all prppglnl-
cd from the letter Just ruled out. Think
| have produced ali the letters " Beecher
In my possession; some Of these ! DIES.
slroyetl; suppose Intentionally; cant tell
anything about the time Of their llestrllC-
ton, but think II WA some time before |
wasl subppnCtl; ! never said to Mr. Swnn
that BeCCher aud | had got into q COntro-
,vcrsy, that Beerler hid either git tuIle-
atrny ME or would destroy Beecher.
This concluded the crOss-examinatiOn
Of the witness, and ex-J,ilge Fullerton
began His redirect examination.
The witness resumed, | cannot remem.
Der any Of the particular. lGtters or en-
vclores relating to the controversy dcS-
ttoyed by me. ..,.,,..
: fhe witness wnstasked with regard 10
the conversation between him and Beech.
er an the 9th olJly, This was the stib.
jeet bf along contest Between the Gotln.
eel, but was finally ruled In order by the
court. The question was answered BY
the witness and the court then took the
usual recess. }tt t.s5 a'Bst E.ss