The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-11


haps-l thIak y beLier not ~ say tue Gay.
q Bat y9g , Gan ~ referring e ne note ~ gus,
this afternoon 70 he away until SATURDAY
Counsel for the defence oid not cross-examine
tins witness.
TESTIMONY OF LEWIS .. JAMES
Mr.. l. q. James testified that he resided al No
440 Carlton avenue. BrOOklyn: knew Mr. Beecher
By sight for the past ten years, ana was intro.
0nceu to hlm a lew yearz ago: Mr. Seeeher was a
customer Of MS his place ~ business being al No.
the anniversary or his marriage was on the I'd OF
June; on that day, in the year 1873, he recoected
seeing MT. beeeher, who az TINS lime vas near
Columbia Heights and going in tue direction OF
Mr.. Moulton's residence on Remsen street. The
BROOKLYN 10 70 TO New York on the morning IN
question earlier than usual AMI the reason he
was because 1t was Inc anniversary OF his
rage, which he always spent pleasantly; he
In trouble and his head was cast down; Mr..
cRoss-EXAMINED BY Mr.. EyARTs.
z. You thlaG MI Beecner mad gloomy look
A. Yes, sir; recullect that 1t a warm dag.
z. Where was Mr.. Beecher when you irst saw
him ? A. i think IL was IN Montague Terrace; re
was just passing over little foot bridge that runs
directly In front Of me; saw a semi- profile view
OF ms lace; the expression was SOBER and sad and
D. Witch side or Montague street were You on
A. ON the lie hand side gong down 20 the ferry;
MIR. Beecner was on Montague Terrace, on ine
Drdge after he crossed the bridge ne was n'tne
upper SIDE, heating toward Remsen street; saw
Mr.. beecner turn nto kemsen Street; stopped
to see HIM or Stacked my pace; TAD curiosity
when lie turned into Remsen street: went down
the steps | noticed this expression OF his face as
came near MIN; this on the I'd lay OF June,
1873; then Went TO my office and renamed there
until i've O'Clock,
TESTIMONY OF JEREMIAH r. ROBINSON.
Mr.. j. +. Robinson, in reply TO Mr. Morris, testi-
fed as Iollows:-I know Emma i. Moulton, vile
OF +. D. Moulton; she is my niece; ! recolect gee
ing r ana hayiag several conversations win
ner in reference TO Mr.. Beecher.
q unset called the attention or the witness %
the occasion OF interview between MIN and
Mrs. Mouton, ana inquired whether she mad re-
lated 70 HIM anything tnat Rad occurred between
Mr. EVar's here submitted that any converse
ti9n between the witness and mis- niece aid not
affect MIR Beecher 10 any way.
Judge Nelson having inumated that he was
realy 10 near argument on the point raised.
Mr.. Pryor commended, IN the course Of an elao-
crate argument, during wllch ne cited numerous
authorities, that the evidence on this important
point admissible.
Mr.. Evarts replied, and at one O'Clock the Court
took recess.
AFTER RECESS.
The Court assembled at two O'Clock sharp, when
the argument on the admlssibllty or Mr.. Robin
sons evid nee was resumed.
Mr. Fullerton sala: Mr.. Bell has inclosed to
me the note Which ne spoke OF in hts testimony.
It Il addressed TO him 10y MIR. Beecher asking MIN
to stop IN on BIS way over, ana IS dated December
To- 1870.
Nr. Evarus referred to cases decided 10 Engllnd
to toe effect tnat this principe vas exploited OF
allowing testimony to be gwen proposed
II witness made statement one hundred times
one way and one hundred times another way the
obvious Inference was tna.t ne was utterly desl
statement except under the SANCTION Of an oatn
would be lmperllhng the liberty OF the citi-
Zen. The authorities ne read were the subject
Of reception OF statements Of witness out OF
court In confirmation OF his evidence in court. HIS
statements out o! court should not be received IN
support OF his evidence in court. The learned
gentleman read at length IRON English authorities
III support ~ TINS position. lie quoted the case or
Butler ys. Ludlow, IN As Barbour, where the rule
was adhered 10. In regard % General lracy's
opening IN this case, Mr.. Nouton was charged
WIN certain hostile proceedings against Mr..
Beecher. ana the vile only came ~ as narrator.
Where was the line TO he drawng Ii Is alleged
tnat before tns suit was brought witnesses made
certain statements. Was II 10 be allowed mat
Mr. rlilon or Mr. M0ulton snoaid give evidence or
statements made by them four years before the
Mr. Fulerio on replied, saying that the argument
OF Mr.. Pryor had not been oyerthrOWu Dy anything
saia tile course OF the remarks OF Mr.. EyarLs.
tie agreed win Mr. Eyarts tnat you could not
show statements Ia court by witness Consistent
with statements made out Of court. Mrs. Moulton
made statement Of conversation she had on
the "a OF June win Mr.. Beecher Mr.. BeecAer
says that no such conversation ever took place;
lnat IL vas all fiction, and that she was inau.
enced in that statement by her husband. How
could they meet tnat statement They could
meet II by showing that on tile same day she made
the same statement 70 third parties. They did not
disagree as " tue general rule 0ut tney disagreed
as 70 the exception 70 the rule, and the exception
was That, as to recent statement they could
overcome that oy showing u was not an inven-
ton on the part or the witness. The learned
counsel quoted the case Of the People va BAN TO
support ms argument lie eontended that the
cOuasel the other side had not attempted by
direct evidence TO impeach the cnaracterof Mrs.
MOulton for truth ana yeracity Counsel quoted
q c4se In iTth Barbour, where the opinion was
delivered by chief Justice Wells. lie learned
Judge recognized exception 10 the general
rule. Ne asked the Court whether the relation or
Mrs Mouiton vas the same now 10 tue case as 1t
was in June, 1879. Then her husband was the best
Trend that Gou ever raised up Tor ii. w. Beecher
spending his money anu MS time 10 wipe 0ut anu
sauelcu FMS scandal That wA- me object 81 Mr.
ana AIRS. Moulton. But, IA 1874, Mr.. Beecher, with
tne ala ~ two lawyers, was brought ~ tile belief
that Mou on was DlackmaIier; h turned on us
Il.ss- Fl4mH nj NAR XrVFV tFFEr Nv
A0ulton was acting with her hgsbaCd IA friendly
way toward Mr.. Beecher. But 70 get rld u tals
testimony was gwen with truth wRen she
aud ner husoana were trying TO save Beecherfr rom
ruin. 20 ne pr posed 70 70 back and snow that
prliod long oeiOre ner testimony In court she told
inc same story she nad repeated on the stand 10
other parties.
Inc Judge said they were all agreed as TO the
general rule, aud there was an exception 10 that
RUE a. stated ia tue authorities. Now, Of course,
tRis evidence would not De proper save Ior the
purpose OF removing any renecucn on Mrs. MOul-
ton 10 regard TO her testimony concerning Mr..
Bescher. what TouDied nln was tnat II TINS eY.-
ceace VAS received before the jury It was not evi-
dence 70 confirm what she stated-lt was evidence
10 get rd o. an imputaion upon her.
Mr. Beach-We disciaim any intent in this mat
ter other than the restoration OF Mrs. Moulton 10
ner true and proper position a witness. We
90 not contend tnat those OUTSIDE declarations OF
Mrs. MOult0n would nave any legitimate erect Ia
establishing Lhe truth OF her testimony.
MIR Eyarts made the closlug reply, cOntsnding
that the decisions were against lls learned friends
on rar other side. Ine lLnputatiOn against Mrs.
AoultOn was in the opening Of counsel and a
contradiction BY Mr.. Beecner How atd tnat
come 10 ne case where she was 10 DC supported
by evidence tnat she mad made carrier statements
on TINS subiecrY An attempt was made 10 M
trOuuce nearsay testimony, wnicn The lay ex-
cludea. witness VINO bad Deen mpeacned
might be supported. lie had NOT impeacned Mrs.
MoultOn. Inc learned counsel at some engtn,
anu with his usual ao1ity, referred 70 cases as
laId down in the law DO ks con tending that the
spirit and scoge 81 them, as well as the decisions
ol courts we're against the position taken up ny
the plaintiffs counsel lie asked the Court 10 re.
luse the application.
mr. Ev rus. 10 concluding. said the question was
simply one OF Impeachment, directly or indirectly;
but taey could not reDut, because there are no
changed relations.
THE EVIDENCE nor RECEIVED.
Judge NeIsOn--l quite satisfied with this.
In tie nrst place, without assuming that there
may be exceptions 70 tac general rule OF evidence,
the real basis OF the application Is found IN the
openIn- Of the learned counsel fJr the defendant,
ara ~ an observation made BY the defendant MIN
sell, IN giving his testimOny-an observation sug-
ResLIye. ana MAJ De saIe ~ bis council. o.