New-York tribune., 1875-03-11


deal home "-broken relations 80 exceedingly
happy as to Justify him in claiming an extraord-
nary sum as damages. The defense therefore
brought forward witnesses to show, first that the
domestic relations of Mr. Tlton and Mrs. Tilton
were not happy and second that his relations wi'n
other women were not moral.
The general drift Of the testimony OF Mr. and MIS-
Ovington, Mrs. Putnam, Miss Moore, and Miss OAK
ley were upon the first question, the domestic re-
latiops of plaintiff and wife. What was disclosed
by each will be remembered as depicting very un-
happy state OF affairs indeed. Mrs. Putnams test-
mony was clearly intended, Judging by the course
OF the examination, to lead up to what
the defense consider and concede 10 De
very important feature OF their case anu
was stopped by objection and ruiing
of the Judge which form curious illustration OF
the manner in which the rules of evidence some
times obstruet the development of important facts
essential to the understanding OF the whole case
Mrs. Putnam had testified to the reception by Mrs.
Tilton of letter from her husband which IL
was indicated was of character TO cause
Mrs. Tilton the utmost distress. 1t was
the subsequent purpose OF the defense 10
show that Mrs. TiltoD, soon after receiving this
letter, returned to Brooklyn and applied TO Mr..
Beecher and his wife for advice as to separation
the requirements of the law that before giving
verbal evidence of the contents Of letter 1t must
first be proved that the letter had been destroyed
The counsel asked questions to prove this, IN answer
to which Mrs. Putnam replied that Mrs. I1lton mad
told her she had destroyed the letter. The law
forblds testimony as to the declarations OF
third person in the absence of plaintiff or defendant
and the contents of the letter and the subsequent
occurrences when Mrs. TiltOn asked Mr. Beechers
advice were thrown of the testimony. Mr..
Tracy of counsel for Mr. Beecher was asked yester-
day if other foundation for the introduction OF the
contents Of this letter would be laid, but he
answered with the non committal formula, II don't
know which counsel on both sides seem to have
prescribed for themselves Mr. and Mrs. Ovington
were questioned upon points not bearing wholly on
the question of damages, but their main evidence
was i'll this direction
Several witnesses were called to testify to i'm
moral conduct on the part of Mr. Tilton. Mr..
Holmes. Mr.. Norton, and Mr.. Lincoln, all of
Winsted, Connecticut, directly testified. and Mr..
Oliver Johnson incidentally stated facts concerning
the adventure at the place named. For the fist
time the name of the lady thus involved was
brought out, Mr. johnson abruptly naming
her as miss Lovejoy" The name has been
repeatedly published without authority in re-
ports of the case, but never correctly.
Dut III was put upon INC olhCIdi lc'olu
yesterday for the first time 1t now appears that
the ady's full name is Sophia A. Lovejoy not Sarah,
as generally printed. The evidence connecting her
with Mr. Tlton in an improper way almost
wholly circumstantial. Mr.. Holmes swore he
her IN Mr. Tilon's room in disheveled state of hair
and dress; Mr.. Lincoln saw her lying Mr.. Titons
bed. while Mr.. TiltOn was in undresS; Mr. Norton
saw her in Mr. Titon's room "all in white the
next morning at daylight; and Mr.. johnson said
Tilton had confessed to him that the two had
stopped the night previous at the same hotel in
New-York Mr.. johnson also swOre that Mr.. lilton
had admitted other indelicate but not criminal rea
tons with another lady.
Passing from this stage of the case to more mpor-
tant matters, the defense really began with the
introduction of Mr.. Belcher. He has been followed
by Mr. McKelway and Oliver Johnson, and will be
followed still further by John G. Harman. Jackson
S Schultz H. b. Clahiu and others, to establish the
same general fact-namely, that Mr.. Tilton never
claimed until n year ago that Mr.. BeecheI 5 Oense
was more than Improper solicitation" This is
the present purpose of defense, and other wit
nesses than those named will probably be called.
The disproof of the allegation of improper soci-
tation and the explanation of the letters will be
left mainly to Mr. Beecher, whose evidence will lie
reserved TO the last. 1t is not likely that Mr.
Beecher will be called for week and a half or two
weeks longer. if indeed early that He will
probably occupy the stand a fortnight OF ten days
After that the summing up on both sides and the
Judges charge to the jury will occupy fully tue first
half of April.