Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1875-05-08

letter OF the same date to Mrs. Tiiton.
Did you know OF that? a i did not
Odd you know anything Of the
existence Of letter commencing, "The
/ blessing OF God rest upon yOu?' It has
no date, believe. A.-NO, sir.
( Q.-l call your attention to letter of
February ), 1872, and ask you the same
| question with regard to that, cOmmenc-
ing there (indicsting). A.-(LOOkiDg at
the letter. have no recollection Of it
whatever.
Mr.. Beach-Is that the Morse letter.
Mr.. Fullerton-Yes, that is the one.
Odd you know anything at that
time OF the charge which Mrs. Tilton
had made against Beecher in writing;
or did you know anything of the exist
euce of any charge which Mrs. TiltOn
bad made against Beecher at that time?
Al did not.
Q.-NOr Of any retrsction OF that
charge? Al did not.
Q-Nor Of any recantation Of the re-
traction? Al did not.
Q-Now, Mr.. Bowen, l understand
you to say that you informed Beecher
on the Monday following, January lst,
that you had then discharged Mr, Til
ton? Al did.
At was in the evening; it was after
four o'clock, l should judge.
Q.-Was it before or after this letter
was written to you which Is marked
"Ex. Al" ? Alt was after that letter
was received.
Q.-YOu had received that letter be-
fore you told Mr.. Beecher? A.-Yes,
sir; | received it in the morning, and [
told him in the evening.
Odd you at any time state to Mr..
Beecher any charges which implicated
his moral character?
Mr.. Evarts stopped the witness with
an objection, and an argument ensued.
The court ruled out the question.
John n. Longhi, q man employed by
the Delmonico, testified for the plaintiff
iH reference to the room in which the
cOlored witness Woody, Tilton and
Mrs. Woodruff lunched. His testimony
was to the effect that there was no res
taurant on the upper floor at the time
Woody swOTe he saw Mrs. Woodruff
and Tilton lunchiDg there.
Adjourned.
YESTERDAYS PROCEEDINGS.
NEW YORK, May IA dense crowd
OF spectators were in the Brooklyn city
courtroom this morning. Tue attend
ance of women was largely in excess OF
previous days. Mr.. Beecher and wife
were in the court before the proceedings
opened, which were delayed by the late
arrival OF some of the counsel. After
the formal opening, Mr.. Evarts said
that Mr.. Beach and Mr.. Shearman
were compelled to be absent, and as the
case was now reaching its close, the diff
ference of adjournment for day or so
would not matter very much. He sug-
gested, therefore, that the court should
adjourn for one day. Judge Nelson en-
tertained the suggestion, and the court
adjourned until Monday next.
SPEECHES TO COME.
The Brooklyn Eagle, in speaking Of
the probable duration of the Beecher
trial, says that the testimony yet to be
introduced In behalf of the plaintiff
will, it is expected, be all in by Tues |
day, and then the remainder of the |
week will be taken up by the counsel |
for the defendant in placing their last |
testimony before the jury. Judge POr-
ter will continue his address on Mon |
day, the seventeenth instant, and will |
take the whole of that week in |
presenting his views in the case /
in behalf of the defendant. The |
address of Mr.. Evarts, which will be |
commenced on Monday, the twenty |
third instant, will probably occupy the |
remainder of the month, and run over |
into June, and if nothing unforeseen |
takes place, the whole of the summing |
up, including the address by Mr.. Beach |
on behalf of the plaintiff, will be fin
ished by the end of the first week in
next month. Mr.. Beach does not ex- |
pect to take up more than three days in
presenting the plaintiffs side of the case |
to the jury. Then will follow the charge |
by Judge Nelson, and the deIiberatiOn |
of the jury, and the veHict may be |
looked for about the middle Of next |
month.