The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-04-22

samuel Nhte Partridge sworn - reside Ia New
JcrseY; ! have resided there ior twelve years;
have been employed IN the lrm OF Woodruff
Robinson; LETT there last December; was there
from lS49 with the exception of one year; ! was
cashier Tor the whole time, with the exception OF
about year ana hail: checks and deposits
passed through my hands; in 1872 a cneck III
BOwen's came into my hands Tor $1,000; thar is
the check udentlhes ~; with that check there
was also attached slip OF paper Qdentlnes the
slip 81 paper this slip Of paper passed out Of my
hands last Friday delivered Il TO Mr.. shearman;
the cneeK was deposited; think put both papers
before put It in my pocket
Mr.. Evarts SAID ne now offered TO read the slip
OF paper.
The Court-What is the object or thisf
Mr.. Eyars-Tais memorandum IS IN the hand.
writing ol Mr.. Tllton; want 10 snow the char
Tue Court Tnat sii might have been handed IN
by some subordinate CLERK. who appended u 10
Mr.. Eyarts--we propose to show that they both
Alter some further discussion between counsel
the witness salu Tho cneck and the slip were
handed TO me by the same person; nave an IN
distinct recollection tina tney were nanded 10 me
By Mr.. Ftan6lin woodruff; cannot say from
whom received them, but | thlnE 1t was rom
member OIL the firm; the slip or paper 10 not Ia the
handwriting Oi auy member ol the nrm.
counsel Tor the plsintlr argued against the ad-
mIssioility u the slip OF paper winch Mr.. Evarts
mad proposed 70 read.
Mr. Beacn said that lie was free to admit that
the paper was IN the handwriting OF Mr.. Tllton
but ne ald not admit Uhat tnat paper was trans
Ierred BIZ Mr.. luton 10 this 1rm in company with
hls cheek, mat This memorandum related TO
tins cheek or The transaction indicated Nv this
check. He meant 10 insist, even II it should APP
pear that ms per was delivered by Mr.. Tilton,
IN company with tails check. IL nevertheless was
immateria, ana Incompetent evidence. what Mir.
Tllton chose 10 10 with THIS check, or however he
might choose 10 characterize tnat instrument
to indicate the source or OBJECT OF the money
whicn was represented by that cneck, was totally
immaterla 70 TINS controversy.
Alter some further argument the Judge allowed
the paper 10 be read.
Now, gentlemen Of the jury, you Will see that ne
pmnoies on those TWO papers completely CORE
spOnd.
Mr. Evarts to witness) Before you received
TINS check and memorandum Mr.. Partridge lad
you SHOWN " le6rd any mag OF what Mr.. hilton
was going " 90 II Mr. Bowen dld not pay himY
Mir. Beacn-From wnom?
Mr. Eyarts-l ask him II ne ala in any way.
judge Neilson--Say yes or no, Mr.. Partridge.
lhe Mltuess-4es, sir.
q. Now, Mr.. Partridge. you didn't connect these
papers together IN any way yourself aid You-pln
them or Otherwise connect them together. A. No,
o. And do Won remember whether, when they
came 70 you whether they were connected by
pin, IN common envelope, or IN common fold
a. DO not remember.
.. Do YIN remember the fact OF the publication
oil Mrs. Wuodnus life by Mr. Hilton. A. Yes, sir.
q. And do you remember conversation with
Mr.. Mouton on that subIecty A. remember his
speaking to me ABOUT IL, Dut believe spoke TO
hun IL the nrst place.
you on the SUBJECT OF Mr.. Tllton's OBJECTS and
motives IN writing that lieS A. lie did; ne SAID
Mr.. morrls-wnat Moultou said in Tnton's alb
senceY
Mr. y sach-Beiore they can show declarations OF
Mr.. Moutony
Mr. Be4ca-It can't come in at ali then as dec
latatlons OF Mr. Moulton against Tilton. beg
Your Honor 10 CONSIDER IL
lengthy argument ensued, and Mr.. Evlfts said
he proposed 70 prove what one Of these men said
oi the other mans object ana motive In writing
hat lie, and that 1t mad no connection with hui
morlng tAls woman. bat was ior Tlton's own OBJ
Ject ar Eyarts was unable to understand tnat
TINS was collateral iact IL might DE subordinate
Ii might not De tie head ana 'front.' oil the evidence
TO prove Mr.. Beecher guilty.; out its sole place
here as Introduced DY them, had been TO prove q
purf q make az an influence from which guilt
was to b. unputel to Mr. Beecner on the PRINCIPAL
TACT BY mis- Acknowledgements lng their conduct
Mr.. Beacn sad that admitting Tor the moment
tina. Mt Ilton aud Mr.. Moulton had agreed IA
tmacy with airs. Woodruff was instituted and
prosecuted, he tnen submitted that the decara-
acton, or IN any degree Interested in It's result
except colateraiiy. az witness, ms DECORATIONS,
not receivaoe, upon any principle OF
Law, OR LOGIC OK JUSTICE.
Where did me counsel learn tnat Mr.. Moulton
even counseAed the writing u the lie OF Mrs.
Woodruff by Mr.. luton, was prlvy 10 10 In any
degree. ana least OF all ADVISED or coneurred IA
any such proceeding Tor the purpose OF conciat-
ting and piacatlng that LADY. way, the evidence
was mat Moulton nad no connection Or knowledge
ol that life except Wnen ~ was written and nearly
completed, aud then condemned and dsapprOYed
II, protested against IL, anu ADVISED Mr.. Tllon
not 10 write IL and not 70 pu0lsh It.
Nj. Evarrs formally ouered to prove by his wit
ness that Mr.. Moulton tod tn. witness when the
matter vas fresn aud the Lille OF Mrs. Woodnullu
Was lust published that Mr.. TIlton's motives and
objects were TO
Pr HIMSELF AT the HEAD or THE sPIRrTUALIsrs
oi TINS country and that they were mo G nuLner-
Gus than the COngregatlOnalIsts.
Judge Nelson SAID ne wouid IKE 10 have specific
Information - 70 the evidence or Dir. MOut0n, be-
cause Il ne rad given evidence Or tuat character
tue deience might contradict u by this witness.
MT. Evdtts said that Mr.. Tton assigned q
reason walcA Mr. MOulton asseveTated aud de-
lYered as tue true reason. Indeed, Mr.. Evaris did
mol know even tnat ~ rested necessarily on the
formal words Of statement Of Moulton but Mr.
MOutoa delivered IL as the motive OF Mr.. 1ilton
10 MS step-that IL, carried 70 the account Of Mr.
Beecher aud Ills interests, under the nnal state
ment or Mr.. luton on las redit ect examination,
tnat before Ca Nj. Beecher was as responsible
waa.n
Judge Neison-I you can show me anything
Mr.. Moulton SAID upon MS examination ON this
subject you are at liberty 70 contradict IL by this
witness. desire 10 rule BY certain settled rules
d evidence.
Mr.. Egarts-I don't can him FOR the purpose OF
cOutradlcung MT. MOnltOn.
Judge Neiison-lnen Will rule IL out.
Mr.. Evarts-i call ann 70 denver the truth as
stated by Mr.. Moulton anu Iltoa that tue per-
soAal OBJECTS or 1llton we're the source and the
motives "a tue wiring Of taat lie.
Mr.. Evarts reLd from the testimony or Moulton
10 the effect that 1iton's WORK on the Lille OF
Mira. woodbury. was SIMPLY a revision Of the
manuscripts "a her husband. Hlton Thought the
people would detect MS nandlwork In IL. and ne
there ore put MS name 10 it; and told him that
dldn't tntnk that was very good reason; lie
said he would take the Responsibility; that was
the SUN and substance II n Win the excep-
ton ne SAID Il was a friendly act and
right In the interest 81 the repression OF toe scan
al against ar. Beecner, himself aud ms wife. IL
vas 10 The IN terest oi his amIly ana Mir. Beecher
tAaf ne had 4One IL and II he mad made mls axe,
way That was all there was OF IT, Mr.. EvQrts
SAID il Was not ia the sense VI i'm peachtnR IL was
what tney call collateral impeachment on Inde-
pendent matter lie proposed 10 show, not ny
nearsay Of stranger, but the statements Of Mr..
Moulton, Identified ~ bis own evidence and ~
Mr.. Tlton's.
FINAL REPLY or Mr.. BEACH.
Mr.. Beach replied mat the argument or bis
learned friend rested upon tue assumption that
AIR. Inton. Mr.. M0ultOn aud Mr.. Beecner entered
upon common operation ior a certain assigned
motive, that they were In league and association
Tor a common OBJECT and ~ common and inter
ested means; that In other words they we're q
coniederacy, which, applied TO an unlawful trans
action. might be termed a conspiracy; and tae
counsel sought TO assmilate the rules ol evidence
Wnicu applied to league vi that enaractsr IN this
association between these three gentlemen. Now
That assumed ne might Win