New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-15
LAWYER AND WITNESS.

The interview with Mr.. Tilton on Dec. 80, 1870
that with his wife on the same night; the Pistol
s enc with Mr.. MOultOn on the next evening; and
tbs circumstances of the writing Of the letter of
apology" or " contrltiOn." were the subjects
touched upon by Mr.. Fullerton yesterday morning
Letters written years subsequently and Mr. Beech
trs statement before the Investigating Committee,
which contained references to these scenes and the
f,mous document. were incidentally mentioned, and
explanations asked. But in general terms. the
sone Of Mr.. Beechers examination yesterday was
confined 10 the incidents named above.
Mr.. Fullerton appeared 10 better advantage yes
ieray than IN any OF his contests with the principal
witnesses for the defense His success with Mr..
Beecher was greater than with either Miss Turner,
the cOlored man WOOdiey, or Mr.. Cook but it in
Lrge measure due 10 Mr.. Beechers poor memory for
ihr details of incidents and conversations Mr..
BeecAers me mOry does not grasp dates, words and
conversations thus far he has been able to recall
Oiy few of the more extraordinary or extrayagant
expressions used by the various actors: and
when on the cross-examinatiOn ne has 10 recte for
the second time the incidents of scene he does not
employ the language of the first description, but in
troduces matters which he neglected to mention at
fist. He does this without varying in the least
the material facts of the story To skillful cross
examiner ike Nh Fullerton such "a witness is Ordi-
narily an easy prey, Mr. OvingtOn was and as Mr.
Beecher would have been yesterday, if his great
reserve of good temper and GOODNESS had not pro-
tected him.
Matters went smoothly and quietly until Mr.
Ircher was led up to the explanation of his famous
etter through Mr. MoultOn 10 Mr.. Tilton which con-
t1ns his apology This is puttngthe description in
tie form IN which the plaintiff delights, and which
II is hardly necessary TO say the defendant repuGi-
sies The counsel for Mr.. TtOn look upon it ~ the
tounlatiOn-sOne Of their case, and their case un-
slcstlonably rests on their success in making the
usy acc.pt SIR. M0ultOn's version of the manner IN
which the document WAC prepared. The persstency
With winch Mr. Fullerton dwelt upon It
and the nervous way IN which Mr. Morris
AMI Mr. Monitor made suggestions 10 him. and the
qick Interruptions Of Mr. Beach and Mr.. Pryor
Whenever the examining counsel framed a question
DO broad OF one which might let in answer too
hli for their purpose, indicated that they had not
lo.t sight Of its Importance to them. The examna-
ton on this point was therefore most elaborate and
eAe.ul and very saillful though 10 gain his point
III. Fullerton vas frequently compelled 10
rsort TO what is generally looked upon
strange device of the cross-exam-
Eer, 10 require categorical answers TO very
Intricate questions. Another peculiarity of the
toss-examination was evinced in the frequent de-
hands Of Mr. Fullerton, after Mr.. Beccher had
stated what he had done in particular cases, TO know
WY be did not do otherwise The aim, OF course,
Va 10 point out 70 the jury if possible, the absurd
ny and folly of what AIr Beecher had done, aud to
furnish a basis for the argument of Mr.. Beach, that
III conduct was improbable. and not that which
Eas natural in an innocent man. Under
Tie restrictions which prevented him from explain
ag his answers of Yes No." and the iInpossi-
OIty Of answering why lac did not do what the
counsel thought natural under the circumstances,
BIZ. Beecher was considerably badgered and little
confused. Whether or not he made any serious con-
sctions in his testimony it is out of place 70 state
lle but the readers of the verbatim report below
VII be able 10 Judge for themselves.