The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-02-23
A NEW WITNESS INTRODUCED.

=
MENT-TEsTIMoNY OF KATE CARY-sHE
SAW ELIZABETH on BEEcHER's KNEE
NEW YORK, Feb. 16.-The Brooklyn city
court room was denssly packed this morn
ing when the proceedings in the great scan
dial trial opened. All the counsel were
present when the court opened and also Mrs.
Beecher. The defenant came in little later.
Mrs. Tilton was accompanied by her lady
| friends. Mr.. TIlton resumed the stand and
continued: During the early part of the
summer, when this story began to be- noised
abroad in the papers, the impression was go
ing around that was drunken and brutal
man, and on consultation with Judge Morris,
he advised the publication Of statement by
me. My object in showing the true story to a
select party was to obtain from them the judg-
ment which thought the public would give.
NY object in this PREPARATION was this: Mrs.
Woodhull's publication was proving dis
astrous to my family and silence could no
longer be safely maintained. l intended to
put forth true statement in order that the
| people who thought there was some foun-
dalton for her story might say, "Well, here
we have the true statement, which explains
everything" Ths witness stated that he
showed this paper to DR.. Storrs among
others. Mr.. Fullerton asked what took
place when it was shown to DIR. Storrs to
which Evarts objected, and long argument
| ensued. Fullerton commended that this
question arose out OF what had
been elected from the witness
by the other side. Judge Nelson finally
decided to allow the question, and the wit
ness continued: AS soon as 1 had read the
paper to him, there was a sudden pause.
DIR. Storrs said to me, 'Mr. Tlton, before
can consult with you or give you any ad'
vice, want to ask you one question. Is
this narrative the whole TRUTH" l told him
it was not the whole truth, only part of it
that was going to give to the public, and
he advised me not TO publish 1t. showed
this story to perhaps twenty or twenty
| five persons, and Mr.. Beecher was among
those to whom it was exhibited. l remem-
Der
A CONVERSATION WITH MR.. HALLIDAY,
in which be denied the truth of the Wood
hull story, and vindicated my wife, though
said some words to Halliday about Beecher
which were Objectionable to Halliday. Ny
object in speaking to Halliday on the matter
was because he was the second power in
Plymouth Church, and 1 wanted to disabuse
his mind of the idea that the Woodruff
story was true. The witness was asked as to
what took place before the investigating
committee after the relation of his wiie's
confession. Evarts objected, and another
| long argument took place. The court
ruled that an answer might bs given,
and the witness replied: made a statement
of MY charge against Beecher and his GRIM
inal connection with Mrs. Tilton. / mad
stated to the committee that had in writing
a confession made to me by Mrs. Tilton in
! July 1870, and by Beecher in the Deem
Der and January following. / had laid be-
fore them sworn statement OF the criminal
intimacy between Henry Ward Beecher and
Mrs. Tilton from the fall of 1868 to the
spring of 1870. This, said the witness, is a
copy of the paper / produced before them.
Mr.. Evarts objected to this sworn state
ment being put in evidences. Mr. Fullerton
| cOntended that this paper was sworn to by
the witness before the committee, and
therefore, it was admissible under the
rules of evidence. ETarts argued that
| this bill was composed of accusations
against his (Tilton's) wife, and could not,
| therefore, be gwen in evidence. Judge Neil
son said that the wife was not on trial then,
nor was she here, and therefore this was not
a bill of accusations against her. Beach
said that they were only seeking TO throw
! light upon a part of the examination before
the investigating committee, part of which
had been extracted by the other side. If
only portion of his testimony was ELECTED,
he would be liable to conviction for inconsis-
| tency, and he would be done great inius-
| tice. He submitted that under the ruling
of the court of appeals, the whole testimony
/ of Tilton's examination could be given.
| Was he to be shown to the jury as having
allowed his wife to commit adultery and
not prevent it. In this document
AN EXPLANATION
of Tilton's statement when he said that his
wife had always insisted to him that she had
not violated her marriage vow, and this was
the document which explained his views on
the matter when he stated this to the COM
mittee. Evarts replied that his friend had
wandered greatly from the subject matter of
the argument. The question was If he, Til
ton, made a qualifying statement of his
views OF what mis- wife meant when she said
this, and for that purpose the other
side had introduced this paper
which they offered in evidence. The other
side did not intend to show whether the
wife qualified her statement when she made
it to him. The paper, the counsel argued,
could be no evidence of itself, as it was only
his (Tilton's) accusations against his wife.
Evarts cited some cases in support OF his
position. Judge Nelson held that the paper
could not be read, nor any portion of il, but
if the counsel desired they might offer the
specific points in it for the purpose of basing
their objections to its being ruled
out raesss ross to .ssd
!, paragraph from Tilton's statement be-
. lore the committee, and Evarts rose to his
feet and interposed an objection. Tilton,
. who had been sitting among his counsel,
here took bis seat on the witness stand.
| Beach argued that the court permitted the
reading of the Woodruff scandal, section by
, section, to the jury, though it was ruled out
as evidence, and that therefore the reading
of this paper should be permitted. though it
, was ruled out from the evidence. Evarts
submitted that there was no rule of evidence
! allowing the reading of this statement after
il had been ruled out from the testimony.
The argument was continued at length, but
Judge Nelson said he had decided to rule it
out, Beach taking an exception. Beach con-
tended that he only offered portions of the
; statement to be read, and asked to make
|. AN OFFER OF PROOF.
. Judge Nelson decided that the offer could
be given, and Evart's excepted. Beach then
J, read the following portion of the statement,
:. which the court ruled out: "That about
: nine years ago the Rev. II. w. Beecher be-