The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-02-11
January $. 1859, ridioute Pa, and asking him to

Nltness-l nave consulted memorandum DOCK
OF NV lecture season OF lS0S-cy, ana mud that ou
January $. 1861, was at Delaware city: nnd also
tnat was ut Winsted, or rather, that was al
ndiouie. Pa. January s, 1870; also was at Win.
sted, December IS. 1869; the proper date OF that
letter should DE -; II must nave been Just such
an error as you have pointed out prevloasly
Mf. Eyarts then read the letter from Mr.. lllton
70 Mr.. HiStings dated TldioLte. Pa. January Q,
1852. IN which an explanation is gwen OF the VIM
sted scandal.
The young girl IS spending hurried vacation at my
honse ana having desire 10 hear me eesnFe, Sna IN
saan Winstd she wea With me g that place to hear
the lecture; arriving at winsead, expected 10 stop az
winch had Ore and she put in room that had no
ere; could not exchange rooms with her,
ssI called Tor Two rocking ne chairs ~ ans
myself on the bed ana Went 10 Sleep; th.
o RI pey s
S me when ~ was p swsSensd
again: and was sitting up wien re,nrned i any OF the
have taken advantage of my absence TO ntrude upon
girl alone IN neysr saw h as
lecture and upon returning 70 the hotel sue went d.
until the next morning but perhaps The servants stole
in upon ner second time and saw her with her dress
Witness resuming-That IS the matter that is
known. or has Deen spoken Of "a the Winsted lm-
putaton, or scandal as II has been called; II was
more recent ID It's relation TO the period oi 1870
than had supposed; learned me TACT yesterday
that was at Winsted on the 2sth OF DecemoeI'
1869; cannot recall the gentleman, Mr.. Hastings.
by name, but nv recollection OF the matter Is mat
whlle was occurring out West Mr. Johnson, VINO
was my associate in the Iadeoe7lfent, re-
ceveu some question some statement that the
st ny being used TO my discredit; that Is my
recollection this letter was written ID conse-
quence OF my hearing some reproach upon myself
In TINS connection. ana this was written as an ex.
PLANTATION; II was written lew days aIter had
been at Wnsted.
THE Woodruff AGAIN.
O. Mr.. Tilton did YOU know or hear OF the exist
ence OF slips in advance OF the publication OF tue
Woodruff scandal before It was puolshedS A. No.
sir.
answer; perhaps | don't understand your ques-
ton; after my return from New Hamspnire. at The
interview at Mr.. Moullon's house
2. You have told us that A. was then told
that slips had been presented to MI. Beecher.
z. That understand You then heard it for the
first tmes A. Yes, sir.
Q. Have you never heard that for several
months before the publication o: the woodruff
newspaper Offices OF the city oil New York, or some
OF thelnr A. l have heard in the later days a
statement to this effect, that certain newspapers
know
Q. The essence of the story that afterward APP
peared In the Woodruff publication, you mean2
A. me essence OF the story OF MI. Beecner's rela-
tonship with Mrs. TLtou.
q. Well you did hear A. For instance, have
heard that some gentlemen knew the story, some
wnile ago; had 10 IN heir Offices; what iOunda.
ton there was for II don't know.
=. You remember 10 have heard that that pub
llcation OF the Woodhulls as IL appeared in No.
vember, In whole or IN part, had been put into the
shape OF slips or type, ana mad been exhibited in
YORK, other than MIS-. Wooanurs own newspaper
oIilcey
LEGAL wRANGLE.
Mr., Beacn-Why do you ask thar
Mr.. Eyarts-ro get at the facts.
Mt. Beach-We object.
The Juuge-I think you may inquire as to the
publication.
Mr. Evarts-I think have right to find out
whether he ever heard Of It. must first inquire
whether he ever heard Oft
Mr.. Fullerton submitted that the question should
be limited to the time OIL the publication OF before
the publication.
Mr.. Evarts-1he cross-eXamluer can generally
tell the witness what point he wishes TO arrive at.
concealment about point Of this kind. The
question Is whether prior to this publication he
had hearu Oh Tue iact that tnere were sips 10 ex-
material and that alone. The present quesr ton
which calls or inlormation or rumors after that
period Is totally lmmaterial.
Tue judge tninK ne may answer the question
lsIenographer reads the question by request OF
Mr.. Beach Il object to the question, unless lin.
tied t. time prior TO the publication.
Toe Judge-ae may answer the question.
within the last year or two.
@ Now be SO good as to give me some notion, as
were in Mrs. Woodhull's office during the period
oil time which you nave assigned as the space OF
that was there very frequently though / don't
know now frequently; went whenever occasion
required / 90 nor know how many times; good
sion did not require; always went wnen sent
for, and sometimes spontaneously.
WOODRUFF AGAIN.
There was pricking up of ears when Evarts be-
gan to push his question on the witness as to
whether he spent three consecutive days in the
company OF Mrs. Woodruff in July, 1871. It is evi-
dent that host OF auxaries are enlisted on the
Beecher side to rake up all the facts ana dust OF
facts concerning the plaintiff. The cross-exam.
ination seemed to run along perilous edge OF In
quiry, giving the audience the impression that
some startling Infringement was at hand.
VISITING MRS. Woodruff AT HOME
should say visited Mrs. woodruff az her
house during the period OF our acquaintance ten
or eleven times la all, but won't Oe certain; |
spent the night under her roof once. ana once
only: 1t was N the month OF September; don't
remember precisely; cannot tell where was
from the Sd to the attn OF July, 1871 have data
In my mind to answer the question:; do not re-
member whether spent the 4th OF July In the
company OF MIS-. Woodnui, nor do l remember
whether was with her on the Sd and 5th OF July.
MEMORY DEPENDS on CIRCUMSTANCES.
Q. DID you spend either OF the nights onnected
with those days al the house OF Mrs. WoudhulS
A. was not at tue house OF Mrs. woodruff on any
night save the one 10 winch have referred.
z. Then ] VIII ask you this direct question.
whether on those tnree days, the Cd, 4th and 5ih
OF July. 1871, you were not IN the company OF Mrs.
Woodnuu and at ner house. and did not spend
either OF those three nights one OF those nights
at her house A. VIII answer part OF your
question with peremptory no; did not spend
either ope two or three or those nights at her
house, but whether during those three Gays saw
Q. Do you mean 10 say, in regard TO an occur
renee as far back July 1871, that relating to the
mode OF spending that holiday ana the days about
1t, you nave no recollection ABOUT 1t A. nave
no. any sort OF notion IL anything noteworthy
had occurred think should nave remembered 1t.
Y. Do you mean by noteworthy" anything
worth repealin2f A. Yes, SIR.
q Tnen. II you mad spent these three days In
her company, leaving out the nights, that would
not have been a TACT TO NIX itself in your memory
A. That would have depended on circumstances.
z. Inen the passage OF three days consecu-
lively with ner wOulu not have been q noticeable
factr A. Yes. SIR 1t would have been, very.
q. Now, II you had done so 1t would not have
been sucn noticeable TACT as would nave i'm
pressed Itself on your memory A. Yes, slr; II
mad should remember IT this moment. but II
had seen her Ia cnance way should not rcmem-
Der IL.
z. Would you regard visit to her at her own
house chance occurrence. that would leave no
Impression on your memory A. think If had
gone there three days In succession should have
remembered IL.
WHERE WAS MRS. TILTON?
Mr.. Titon continued. do not remember where
Mrs. TIlton was during those ihree days Of July,
1871; think she was 10 SchoDarlc; my impression
Is that IN my last statement there IS a letter from
ler, dated July 4, best recollection IL that ny