The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-01-23

the Judge sterny interposed -
''Do you propose to follow this line OF inquiry,
Mr. TracyS | shall stop YOU sir ifyou do"
Tracy, whose face was already rather nvld,
counrered by the witness two or three times IN
Monlton's manifestly superior vocabulary and
perspicaclty, became still paler and IN tha glarng
way he mas at mad tunes folded his arms and
let Evarts make the Argument The Judge ned
that rlton mignt have Introduced the woodruff
woman at the Steinway lan meeting ana have
| alter such introduction. holding that II must be
proved first tnlt rilton had re adj the speech. he
reiIances OF The defence to prejudice the jury
| against Mouiton's and lilton's suppostltious
baiiled the outset and the Court anu the public
| spared oeiuge o, nee-love dialectics.
tue forenoon. and the advantage was rather with
the defence.
At the opening Of the Court the crosse xamln0-
ton OF Francis D. Aoulton was resumed oy MI.
Witness stated-I do not think advised Mr..
Beecher TO preside for Mrs. woodruff at Steinway
Hail; was not furnished with printed copy OF
saw ope; MIR. Triton was never given one In my
presence, either IN print or manuscript; never
saw sSsa copy IN s r sen
Beecher TO preside; tnink have letter rom
Mrs. Woodruff to Mr.. Beecher on that subject;
DO not Know that the letter has been produced.
MIR. Beach-lt mas not.
The proposed lletter was introduced.
Witness-Auotr err proposed letter. Mr.. Beach.
Examination continued nave no recollection
OF &C ing IN conjunction with Mr.. Ti!ton and tax.
and trying to persuaue him TO preside at that
meeting; 90 not recollect whether we three
woodruff Woo do not remember saying to Mr..
Bee :ner. in the presence OF Mrs. woodruff and
s % ana nay S" nane to
the radicals and IT Will break your iall;"
l was never present at such an IN.
terview; l was present at the Steinway
Han meeting; went with Mr.. Triton; he inlro-
daced Mrs. Woodruff; think he occupied the
occupied the chair; remember his waking to
the ont OF the platform with his coat on hs arm
and then introducing Mrs. Woodruff; believe l
heard almost all OF ner speech; | 90 not know
what was called the title OF the speech cannot
'''0A''' suSJsCr OF THE SPEECH;
the point OF the speech was the relation OF man
to woman and woIaap to man and woman to So
clety; cannot telpy0u whether 1t was ABOUT the
Juase~Haven't you gone far enough with that,
Mr. irscy-was it not on what you Call the doc
Judge.-Do You wish to go into THAR think you
MIR. rracy-we bow to the decision Of the Court
Judge-My view Is simply tnIs:-H Mr.. TitOn
knew oeivre he introduced the speaker what the
speech was, then ne would De responslo Tor what
was SAID. but Il ne did not know it prior to intro
ducing ner tnat did not make MIN responsible Ior
what followed.
Mr.. lracy-We can only show one fact at time.
We show ne introduced ner and she made a speech,
and we NAY show he anew what that speech was
before II was delivered, and we examine this wit
ness Tor nat. We desire to have this question AM
sWered now.
judge rule 1t out.
Mir. Tracy Your Honor WILL note our exception.
Mr. Evarts-will the stenographer read the ques-
stenographer-wasnt it on what was called
the doctrlne OF free lover
MI Evarts-ls tnat OoJected 70 Dy the Otner sldef
Judge-l object TO II.
MI. Evarts-Your Honor will note our exception.
CrosS-eXaminatIOn continued.
By Nj. Tracy-D0 you know whether the friendly
relations between MIR. Ilton ana Mrs. Woodruff
continued after that speecnY A. think they did,
what WAS the Uule OF the speech, OF the
Mr.. Trncy-NovemDer 20, 1871.
Witness cOntin ued-l remained on friendly rela-
lions with MRS. Woodruff after that speech; do
not recoiect whether Mrs. Woodruff came TO my
house a. ter that speech: think Mr.. Triton was ar
my house one day wnen the subject OF MRS. Wood
nuls speech was discussed; l think ,L Mr., Tllton
versed with her; do not know whether he went
away with her.
Mr., Tracy-Now answer the question that put
before.
Judge-He may answer 1t now.
Mr.. Iracy-Read the question: Mr. Stenographer.
Stenograpner-Wasn't IL on what was called tue
doctrines OF iree lover
witness-well SIR. I don't know precisely the
doctrines OF free love, and, therefore, cannot an
swer the question; suppose the puoltc construed
Mr. Tracy-That's enough OF that You mean
by the public tie people WAC heard II
AIR. Beach-Well, we don't want his superstition
a. TO " hat Others cOnStIu II.
Judge think that answer will do.
Mr.. Tracy-Mr. Aouton, you have stated that
vi the Bowen claims.
MIR. Beacn-He DID not state so.
NJ. Tracy thinK the authority has been intro
Mr. Morrs-The authority mas been introduced
and ne said ne had authority.
Mr.. Tracy-lS not the power or attorney an EVIL
dences
Witness-No.
Mr.. Morris-He did NOT tell you whether he was
attorney. He said he had authority.
Judge-He was the agent.
WIness-Mr. Tilton authorized me, which was
Settle tue claim against Bowen.
witness then stated:-I tooK the charge OF COL
lecting that claim; was authorized by letter on
either January l or 2; In pursuance OF that
authority saw MIR. Bowen and presented MIR. Til
toms claim: demanded something near $1,000;
he SAID that he Ola not think he owed Mr.. Tilton
any money, and If he thought he did ne would
arbitrate. =
Mr.. Beacn-Are those declarations to be admit
material mat ri what MI Bowen assumed in regard to
tine reasons why he resisted the claim Of Mr..
Tilton.
The counsel then argued to some extent on the
right OF admitting the assumptions ol Mr.. Bowen,
and Judge Nelson finally stated, "You can an.
swer, MIR. Moulton, the question as to the claim
and Its validity" The stenographer then read the
last question, and the
He said he did not think he did. and II thought
he dlu he would be Wiling to arbitrate; that III.
terview was on either the LIST or "a OF January;
aterward saw Mr.. Bowen at nv house, ana be
said again he was wiling TO arbIrate; thInk MIR.
Tit0n had told ne In the meantime that he was
trate; SAID u Mr.. Bowen, 1.-THE contract provides
Otner and specific provisiOn-that 49, IN the con-
tract, IN regard 70 It's termination; think you
have terminated the contract, and 1t has
several plain PROFESSIONALISM Is, II can
terminate In any OF these ways, that on
notice 1t can be terminated at once by pay
msnt OF certain sum VI money! think 1t was
$500 or $4,000 which was mentioned In the con-
tract''-apd he SAID he thought the contract
| required arbitrati0n; that there was provision
that Ii there was difference between the editor
and publishers that the Interpretation VI the con-
tract was tnat arbitration should be res0rted to-
that the difficulty should be settled by arbitration
said to Mr. Bowen, .Inat Is as regards his duties
as editor to yourself and yours as publisher to
MIN EDITOR" and then there was another
grouna when spoke 20 him about
Mr.. Iracy-Which DO not wish 10 refer to now.
witness Communicable did not say he owed Mr.
| TlltOn any money but he was wliiing to refer to
Arbitration; did not bring suit against him; MIR.
| Tilton uId did not COME with or pay counsel
| on that OCCASION Mr.. Hilton commenced suit
against them In the latter part oil 1871 or the be-
ginning OF 1872; had several interviews with Mr..
Bowen on the subject OF this claim.
CROSS QUESTIONS AND CROOKED ANSWERS.