The New York herald., 1875-03-18

male students OF the University In the meeting az
the time OF the lecture; they were rom the ages
OF fifteen 10 twenty years.
q. What was the number OF female students In
the University alter tnat lecturer
The Judge-You can't put tnat.
Mr.. Evarts-We won't except. Your Honor.
Inc Judge tsmling) la much ooiged 10 you,
TO Mr. Evarts-I have come here on some church
business.
Cross-examned oy Mr.. Morrls-About two
months ago had some correspondence with the
counsel IMr. shearmanl IN THIS case replied; !
mad another letter from Mr.. sherman; | replied
10 that also; was not requested TO come on here;
Mr shearman said IN one of his letters that he did
not thlnk my attendance would be necessary.
Q. Did you III your letter state the acts TO MIR.
Shearman as you have stated them here to.daya
A. gave the substance; niled my sheet Of paper
ana thought that was enough; daughter;
think communicated to him the sub ,tance OF all
dollar for expenses; have come here at my own
expense Mr.. Shearnan telegraphed to me 10 come
home and my wife sent the telegram TO me to this
city and II iound me here; in that way was got
serday to come mere: when Got the the telerpam
went and notified Mr.. Evarts as | thought IL my
duty to DO So, after having consulted friend as
TO my duty In the PREMISES our President pre-
sided at Mr.. riton's lecture; Mr. Titon ectured
there the next day; tine assembly was composed
OF the faculty. students and citizens; was not
present at the lecture, but neard lat Mr.. Tilton
gave thai lecture at the reqoest OF the students
and faculty IN the college chapel.
dents returned vote OF thanks OF the University
to Tneoaore Tion Tor delivering the lecture there.
The witness was further examined as TO the
utterances oil riton in his lecture and the exami-
nation took a Wide range Oh marriage divorce
and the causes lor separation. The witness mad
opposed Illton and claimed to have been perse-
cuted therefor, and had since severed his connec-
tion with the University.
Mr. Evarts showed the witness q letter and
asked II that was the one he wrote TO Mr. Shear
man.
Tue witness replied in the affirmative, when the
counsel offered It in evidence.
MI Beach objected, and the Court said that they
The counsel for defence contended that the
palntin had explored the subject OF the CORE
spondence' and they should be allowed TO put in
Judge Nelson thought the letter might be
| Mr.. Beach said this letter may have something
| else IN II. The point OF inquiry was that Mr..
| Shearman had informed the witness that he was
| not wanted, and snen sent Tor him. Ine letter
might contain Otner evidence tAan nad been
| given by the witness on the stand. The admission
evidence. Mr.. Beach took the letter and, after
9lancing over t. he handed the letter to judge
with the request that he would aqualnt himself
Judge Nelson said the letter contained other
matter mat b9E there was no DOUBT but that Mr.. Gay
| to here. The letter was ruled out.
Mr.. Evarts excepted.
Mr.. Fullerton said the witness might have been
labOrlng as d missionary with the other side.
Mr.. Cay rose and, turning to the Judge, said in
an excited tone ana manner, al 90 come mere
| ton from SucD sneers.'
Judge Neilson-Certainly, sir, you are entitled
| to protection from SneerS.
Counsel protested mat no sneers were intended,
and Mr. Beach sad, There Is good chance Tor
missionary work among the counsel on tue other
! Mr. Evarts then questioned the witness as to
there beng more stringent laws IN operation IN
indiana on divorce within the past two years.
Mr. Beach objected to the questions and the
counsel retorted by asserting that ne merely Gle.
sired 10 show that the Legislature had passed
more stringent laws on this subject the very ses
sion alter MIR. rlltOn's lecture there.
Tne Court then adjourned until eleven O'Clock