New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-01-05
TESTIMONY OF JAMES II. DRAKE.

The testimony of James II. Drake of Staten
Island summoned 40 witness In behalf OF Mr. Beeoher,
was taken yesterday Chambers de bene ese the wit
ness being about sail for Europe. The evidence 70
lated solely to declarations OF Francis d. Mouton de-
pyine the truth OF reports published In Woodruff d
CIafin,s Feekly Messrs Shearman and Sterling ap-
reared for Mr.. Beecher. and Thomas W. Pearsall aud
George W. Roderick for - Tilton Mr.. Drake testified
as follows:
BY Mr.. shearmsn--o What are your occupation and
resdepce9 A. My residence IS on Staten Island.
O. What Ia your occupations a. am grain ex-
porter. J.. An ou INV. .,v
pecunary interest In either Of the parties TO this &C
uS1 Are You now and were you in the year 1877 ac-
ousnted with Mr. Francis D. Moultonf A. am and 1
a. Did you on or about the month Of November 1877,
read or read certain statement purportng 20 be
made by Mrs. Victoria C. Woodruff. in paper called
WoOdhtH q CLGtins Weekly, In which this deiendant
was charged with having had improper relations Win
the wife Of the pnSn the q par pSl roaa A 0u'
Did you aiterward have an in ts %se mr. a.
talked OF between youi A. Yes, Sir.
o. When and where, as nearly as you can statef A:
W% two Sa O6 Rs that
ment CD tho NewYork Produce Exchange, beside the
desk at the north end OF the col counter
O. State what took place on that occasion,
with reference this subiecti A. asked Mr. Moulton
IN words about as follows think can use the exact
words because have repeated them frequently; Mr:
MoultOn, what about this woodruff ana Claim scandal
He in rather an ncensed manner Objected TO
nv pIaintiff) ats damned Of womens fables"
ii think he said old womens, but am not surej, to
mony to convince that Henry Ward Beecher is
criminaly guilty. [0ojected to by plaintiff
Mr. MoulJOn then hurriedly said lne was interrupted
by some one coming up) as to the crimnaty 1t hasn't
shadow of proof, and II Mr. Beeohers career is not
don't deserve TO your mind satisfied. That was
all Sir. We interrupted there, and the conversa
'-ON Wv CROSS EXAMINATION.
Cross-examined by planulrs attorney:
O. Mr. Drake, are you the intimate frlend OF MI
Rescber the defendants A. do not know him. Sir,
cent by sight; every body does that.
O. Are you the intimate friend and confdant OF Mr.
Mc1Itoni A. No. Sir; have known him, however.
O For now iongi A. For I'VE six years from now:
3 At this time how long did you know him ! A. had
known him from three to four years
@ Had he ever made you conhdant In any matteri
@ In any vayi A. Not in anything but business
Q Are you intimate friend OF the plaintiff A No,
Sir; don't know him.
O. Who preached the subject Of this Interview between
Mr.. Moulon and YOURSELF A. told that In my direct
testimony; will tell 1t again, or will give the
exact circumstances which led TO 1t; preached the
O. Was anybody present besides you and Mr. Moulton
t t.. at the close by Mr. W. b. Barber.
O. Did this interruption terminate this interview or
In what respect did Mr. MouitOn make you his con-
fdanti A. Only In business matter transactions be-
tween each other did not think that was any display
@ Is that the only thing you refer to by his conf
O. Did Your intimacy extend TO his visiting your fam
fly and you his family A. No, Sir; merely business
acquaintance.
o. In reference Co Moulton's inceDsed manner when
he said IT was damned mess Of old @omens fables
incensed maDneri A Yes, Sir.
q. Can you say OF your knO Wedge what caused Mr..
MOdlton's indgnaonf A. No; cannot say Of my per-
sOnal knowledge.
O. Can you say OF your own KNOWLEDGE whether this
IMAGINATION not caused by Mr.. M0ultOn's taking
Oifense at being questioned at all A. He did not tell
me that he was incensed, or why he was incensed
difference OF opinion arose at this point between
Mr. Oderck and Mr. Shearman as 10 the sufdciency OF
the answer 10 the last question Mr.. R0derick main
tanned that IL not sufficient ana the parties finally
went before Judge McCue 70 have the dispute settled
Mr.. Sherman said: If your Honor please, there Is
little difference OF opinion TO whether the last answer
Is a sufli Ient ~ the last question. The counsel
asked witness why Mr. MOultOD was incensed, and
he answered that he aid not know because he did not
tell him. Now want your Honor 10 decide whether
. The answer Is sufficient or not.
Mr.. ROderlek-I wanted him TO respond, yes or no.
Judge McCue-Why, he says Mr.. MOutOn did not tell
HIM why he was incensed. Is not that sufuclentf
Mr.. S1earman-fbe witness tod the gentleman he did
not know anything about IL at all. dont know how
gentleman can tell how man Is angry II he dont Know
the reason for IT,
Judge McCne ITO Mr.. Roderickl-Do you want the
witness 10 tell you why Mr. Mouon was incensedi
Mr. ROderfck-I want to know what his personal
noWedge Of the OF Mr.. Moultons indignation.
Judge McCue-Tle witness says IN answer 10 the
question, Can tell what caused Mr.. M0ultOns indg-
iatoni No, cannot OF Iny own knowledgof" Is not
that sufficient
Mr. Rodcrick-Oh,I didn't see that beforei
. Judge McCue-Wel. young man, you ought TO have
seen II.
Mr. Drake then signed his testimony.