, 1875-06-10

Ing tho jury believe sh.t Tilsoa vas puuedr r
with hlA own egotisu1. Sir. Titton asid ho oy
matched Deaches In that controversy bccause
tltoecher1 WAS wrong, and the truth algnysl :
vanea. That anre'T. nat'l counsel, waa not ::
RIos'icAnon. a. 1lr. Porter aaya Tic fee'
counsel: nnid Nr. Beech, dvcl. at length on.
is called
THE "rnuE a7pnr," - =
md stated that Theodore 'r1ltpu called IL f. =
tliat name to ltedpath, hnd that nfterwlE q
tliltonj had pronuHccd tl4is fatsc. Mc:.,: ii
argued that this Testimony had been mi I'd
~ Porter, aud read from tho ovidnco Of luton
70 disnrose tho assertion 1natio by counsel for
tho defense. Why tllcn said cnnnse did john
10 mighty and will prevail. Counsel here read
from Tilto,ts Testimony In regard to tue occa-
s!9n which called for tho production Of the
"mS.tet !r,'s to . comtlsning Ffion1;" 49,.
Eo Eo 9notei n the Bacou 'ottcr 4 garblo'l edition
OF Tho Letter Of consritiou or Apology"
and failed to eiyo thnt portion Of it
that Nah fasorableto Mr. Eccchor. mud this was
= serious in'nutaslon; and required to 10 OK
atnlned to aen IL they sln.l disptoYed Titous IN
teRrlty. Or My OF tho witnessca produced for
hin. Mr beach thon tcad D portion of tho let
ter referred to, aud Raid that TiIton had not pnt
~ "oEd or suggestion il that document ifn-
putting a. onense to l,ecchcr On the contrary
II Shields aud defcnd+ both. But Nacon lad
chathctcrized Tilton IL a knaye, aud dor aud
th1d that lo was living OF boccler. Was this
lmputht!on to reat md not bo denied How was
this to b remcdoA but by simple relation Of
tho facts with rcsafd to 6is dealings Wit, tle
charc!i and tho Wcat chn,gcs; aad, thero-
fore Tilson 1uetc1 from Dee:hcs's letter. and
what part did Ao omit? sir. Portor sayn
~ omitted that portion Of It tpnst favorable ia
Nr, Breciior. CounHel read tho portion which
~aS not quoted, and npacaled t, tho jury II
there Vas anything in II which 1aH favorable to
3lr. Eeecher. Dotl, thcAo learned counsel had
M1sHEpnEsESrED ANOTHER FACT.
10th had sail TINT Tltton. iu tns summer of
loi4. hAl seus word to Ueecher By I:edl atn that
j!o MAS going to change lis tactics. A1r. T!!ton
d!d hona wcrd that lie Nas going to chatgo
adultery. Why did hs 10 1t? Why, up 10 this
time these men l'ad bern working witt. tic mo-
OF atlouco and Iilton up to that psriod ~ 1l,1-
sl'nnco OF TINT policy, had eaid tho charges
wero OF IMPROPER proposal OH tho part OF
Eoecier towards Ills wife. /: waa true TINT TIL
ton DECLARED that h:B wife was pnre IN MI angel!
mud that tho charges were imrroper proposals.,
sud it Was III th1s vein that tlcsc pnpcrs noto
Prepared which rouAed tto hostility Of Mr.
Eeecher. What Was sllcto in the letter to Dr.
!'acnn exert tue quotation from tin ow1i letter
10 I1lton that forced Becchsr into tho angry
Hood.-onIy that quotation which Of aIl tho lst-
ter of cot'tIltion hu sHearB tue stand ia tine
Tho opposing council next ray that ,trs.
!Mou!ton oa tho stand, pronounced
Mr. Iht1n ~ treachoroua MID thoy cihrge
her With being cuEtsNiEator against sIr Deecl,-
er. acting under tho influence Of lcr husband.
Nnat Uorc the circumstances under which Mrs
aloulton mado tiso Of these expressions ~ anket
the counsel; after which he read to tue Jury
HRS. Moui.oa'H evidence on tho snbject. ''Thoro
WA nothing IN this testimony" said COUNSEL
THAT justified tho other Bi4o III saying that
bl!o. Monlon regarded TlItou With loatniug or
called him tr5achegons."
The Court adjourned.