New-York tribune., 1875-02-16
MR. MouLroN's TESTIMONY QUESTIONED.

MR. MOULTON's TESTIMONY QUESTIONED.
Mr.. Evarts-That is another view, II your Henor
please whether Il be material or net. Am entitled
to show whether Mr. Moultons statement Of that trans
action as communicated him. ana his answer to k that
occurrence took place Now he admits the ransaeton IN the
shape that Mr. Moulton puts H. that is very "eiu>f The
end Of that but he does not he exudes entirely and inter
poses transaction entirely saerent In is fea'nsss
Judge Nelson-e says 5000 Transaction was con-
municated TO him
Mr. Evars-The question only whether II ws $ao" Or
5000 However will repeat the testimony; az
written down. Now, is examInation this may
may stand substitute for this other transsersn bot
u for me 70 fnd out whether 1t does or does net
Judge NesOnYou have ust got the information from ss
witness on that g, 900 transaction.
Mr. EyGts-No, definitely
Judge Nelsoa-wel add It's desncness and lei os 80
what itiG
Mr. Evarts-Ihave Mr. koutons Testimony concerning largo
OF money and that he communicated the facts aboat
Mr. Beecher and communicated Mr. Ttons dealing wah
the proposition 10 Mr. Beechcr.
Judge Nehson-The witness does reooect that trans
acton at oil but he does peolect q proposition Of
81 OO may mistaken; may be the 10
may not In either event Is utterly mmateral; rs sges
ton carried out-a bare suggestiona naked saggestos
futIess suggestion utterly fruess However nteesate
him II you attach any importance TO IT,
Mr. E,arts- certainly material whether Mr. houton has
stated the truth about 1t or not
w.
der very grave mistake regard the evidence in tas case
az it now stands MI testified that there was Propo
stion mao third person 70 contribute slOo TO the eap
Of The Golden Age through him; that he eommnncaies h
proposition TO Mr.. Tilton, and n was rejected, ahs
that the note was sent bsck-ibs note for SIS"
returned the person making the proposition MI
Tton has within the ast few minutes stated to the eoun
sci the other side that that the $1,000 OF which he has
present speaking that the two transactions are de
ta there be doubt about that Now there never has
any proposition TO contribute 5000 to the capital OF ys
Golden Age by anybody; such sum has ever enseea
into this testimony except what Incorporated nas
question put by the counsel the other side daring the
present crosseTamnaon is that the proposition made by
Mr. Beecher contribute The Gcn Age entirely differ
from the proposition oftheother person to contribute
$1,000
Judge Nelsou-separate and apart Go Mr. Eyar's ws
will see.
Mr. Evars-My inquiry is from whom this $1,000 PROPOSE
ton you speak Of came
Mr. Fuertou-That objected because It did not come
from Mr. Beecher.
JudgeNeson-Then Il il imma,eria utterly Immateal and
rule ont; there should be end somewhere.
Mr. Evarts- your Honor please is IL 10 be held that
immatera for me to Mr. Moultons statements IN
regard the matter not the truth
Judge Neson-This about the 5000 utterly i'm
material rule your last question that the ex'eni Of
my ruling.
Mr. EvartIfyou Honor please note my exception 10 your
ruling.
Nr Evas-when this proposition Of the $1,000 advance
made your A. fix the exact date; all know about
il is what Mr. Moulton told me- that il very ndsnct in my
recoecton knew thing abont il of my knowl
edge at all.
Q. What did Mr. MoultOn tell you' A. I don't remember
that very distinctly. except that the substance Of It that
friend Of his and OF mine had proposed through him. in deli
way, buy share OF The Golden Age to the amount Of
81 and rejected hepoposion that Is The substance Of
il, Sir
@ And that was anterior the receipt Of this 1900 thS
Moulton sent your A. Wen cannot fix the date, Sir