, 1875-11-09
Loador's Cnso In tho Court Of
Sessions.
Motion for n Commission to Tnko tho
Testimony of Mr.. and Mrs. Rich.
artls...L0adcr's Affidavit.

s,cn offered to read au nnidaYit By Joseph
Loader.
Judge lIooro-Ia tloro any opposition
DIstrct-Attorney Dsi.ton-fes, sir; l have
10 this motion. aty point is tint tho
counsel LAS fnlfed 10 bho" tho mAterh!ity Of tho
tried In thia Court aud will aak lilc counsel II
hc will htaso tho n,aterality OF the testimony an
far nB this dofoMtihnt is concerned, and tic bear
ing II has upon tho tssuea in tt,a indictment.
Judge Mooro-1s there any ohjocson to grant
Ing tho motion on account OF tho aoay in thu
application for tho Commission
tlict-AttoEney-Not amy. your Honor.
hlr. Mnfau, LoadesB counsel, thon read tho
following affidavit:
1.oADgn's AFFIDAVIT.
CnuRT or SESSIONS, K.Hus CuuNrr-pcoplD OF tho
Sato II New Yurk vs. joseph toat!er.-E.ty u HFoot
iyn, County of knq, a.: Jotcpl 14oader being slhly
tho 18TH day Of July, 1875. I'll Indictment WAS lled
hrretn against him, charging him with ti!o crime Of
On np .a TIT "ly iii sa
mined i tis Court: that depnnsnt ias fully md faiE"
Isooksn, and lA fully aud fairly dlsclosed hi thu
facts which hs ezpecs to provo by tue wnesses here
That ieponent advse, BY Ills said counsel. after
such Etacsncnt and verify teeves that lie l,as good
merits thereof, and that Jossph L.. richards nnI
M.saras n. wifc md each 4 of them, @rs material
ha conc r"s IN an n ~ Neri acv, Eliza,
beth r Titon, wife of Theodoro Tton, Of the City of
~ H. n9nsnt i, ininrInad , hoosss ,ns a,a Iii ~
csis on ~ @ nsy ri ne rs G
vii fcstif iiHs 10 ~, 80 -, ~ % .tn rafrraT
tn n In ,,'rn,S ~ ,soSt - anDn, sc o, IN
Iii inde,m"nt In tha mouth ~ nctn,r 1.ea nr al
any ohcT time. have sexual intercourse with Henry
tessos. I'D Eiaaos.h IL 's ron lid 5 he1sotoro % At
timea and placea UNKNOWN to deponeus, skn acelnra
nrai md writen Ia Eaid Toson; # nfrh.rs I'd WV
nrhnTd,' hs Mtte. an md earh af thcm' iprm,l,cnt
nn IL ~ IN, = n ~ .mt anI no IT,
a,a se, sa noa. ~ ~ nar @ pSn o ~
gus.bch Il. T!!ton did have ssIuei intereonrso viii
period. Including snid ,,lonth Of Of ~ fnaintan
toward eaid Henry Ward Beechcr, continuing Grim.
'nal ana adnleIous relation. ,u a.,
~ In. sna sosy osefen ~
Sr''. III VIII a ~ r. sa ro.
fessions ad sanitaona vii be- matsr!a, eydause fot
ills ,leteutsnt npon lie till Of exiI Indictment.
That doponept is fnstbor Informed aud bolisvcs
sad Joseph L. Richards was oa aa occasion. the of
aslos e. ths hous' M II Livingston street hfool
s;'.h T1o" M ~ Mnrry w,rd f,nnshs1 III.
In 10 show tlo existence Of I'd aIuteroHs relation
betvccu thstn, anl - deIonons il advised and DO.
iieyes The testimony Of ssia Joseph H. ehsrds L. re
urcn 11 The t5ial Of 81 s.id !. Indictment.
r,.ann II Tsiha1s nn Nthd. H. ;t r. t
fesiI" in this Stnto hui rcsflcs nj aionciar In TN
ststo Of New Jeraoy. ''>'-'
Thai tho reason this application haA not been made
beto1u Is ~ follows: That dcnonpat being unable TO
obtain bail remained II 1aIl until shout tho 2oh day
Au8aat 1ss aat 70 oossn y, n! ns no W..
his via to eeeuro ii, nun5amen: hat dsuonsnt a haa
jarca fsmy. eonai.aing of Via and 4ya chiJren s
isrsndsn: ui,on him 1sr suppo. md that s,nso III
reloase bau, deponent HIS not ly teason If that
fact oson shle TO ave hs persoual attention to tho
preparas!on o. hlo deiente; that deponent has no
sase ~ ie'easo - atofesal aad err counsel nati
upodt tt!o 4AH A~1 VI SGtODpls au4 &Ap oceA
aetyo stsps aEeu in tic preparation Of . Iefcuso:
hat Az doponent ia advised and believes lhs applt.
cation iH n'sIo ct thu carleat practicable moment
sinco he las beon able to 10 represented BY counsel
Mr. Marian said he beloved 1t waa stated be-
foro tho Magistrate by tho counsel, who then ap-
peared tor vi. Losdor, that tho theory waH that
Ms. Beoeher vas snnooeut ! of the charges btonsht
1hs theory Of ~ clients aoiease Is thst III.
Doecher wn6 guilty Of tile crtne Of adultery with
ttrs. Eiizabeth 3titon, anu OF perjury. II will
DO claimed that tue testimony sought 70 be In
ttoauced ~ tot .As naEpess of essnsl'shng shess
into this case, and 1t makes 20 difference wheth~
| q that act #As committed bef0rs or aftor tho
time stated whon als. Loader saw improper con.
duct, rot Aau!tesy, between Mz. UeecheE and
Mrs: Tilton.
Dtstrict'Attoruey Bsltton then sa!d ho sup
posed it would be conceded that before Coia.
tnisaion will issue to examine witneases out Of
tho State In criminal or civil action, 1t must np-
| peAr by tho affidavit md papors before the
| Court that tho testimony will probably become
tnaterinl upon the trat. Now, based upon
that pFopoaition he objected on the face
OF this affidavit on the ground OF funatesiality+
| Hn read from Mr. Loador's affidavit in support
| Of hls argument and discussed at Bome length
tho admtsaihillty OF the taatimony sought to bc
I obtained from tho parttea named. Tue Charge
by Loader 1t must bo borno In mind, WAS uoi
that Mr. Deccher and Mrs. Tilton committet
| ndt ,Itnrv m dnp nrn n maj A 4
place, but that On certain OCCASION, In = cez.
taln placo, he SAW improper fAniliasitiea be.
&wqon Mr.. Deee!lor and Mrs. Iiltop. nps adul.
tory, but from wlich such an iofeteuco may be
| drawn, and t1len counsel propoaos to prove
adultery, committed bcfofo snd after tho occur
rc,,co mentioned, as defonse 10 tho crime witt
douoo that via material to support ths
cLarge ia tho trial ia kilc otho1
Cours bccsuso inrnsscrinl ia tho trial d
I'm fndirtmont apninst I.nhdsr, h1r. Tlr,ttnr
ti,on c,ed numerDna authoritieh in regard 10 Nj,
adnisslbilsty Of tho tost|mony. Tho opjy duos.