New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-04-24
FURTHER EXAMINATION on SAMUEL ID.
PARTRIDGE.


Samue, Dwight Partridge was recalled and
further examined.
Mr.. Evarts-I will take up your examination now
upon certain point at the stage at which 1t WAS arrested
by legal objection when you the stand before
called your attention TO conversation with Mr Moul-
ton on the subject Of the fact Of the publication OF Mrs
woodhull's Lifo," 10y Mr. Mouiton (which you remem-
bercd and asked you il Mr. MOulton said anything to
yo,, on the subject OF Mr. TOns object aud motive in
writing that Life" and you answered that ho did; now
I ask you what did he say TO youi
Mr. Baach-Tnt ia objected 10 upon the ground that the
declarations Of Mr.. MotOn not evidence against Mr.
Til,on and upon the further ground that the decara
tos we're as to a collateral matter and they there
fore subject to contradiction and on the further
ground that there Is nothing In those decara-
tjops called for contradictory Of the evidence
Of Mr. Mouton previously given except OF course his
dental Of having made the declarations. And your Honor
will perceive from tho testimony drawn ont now from
Mr. Monitor on the stand ba' he declares that 40 such
motives were ever assigned him by Mr.. ToD. and it
Il taking his declarations against Mr. Tlton-deeiara-
tions which in themselves not competent "A against
him. and declarations which, submit To your Houor are
entirely upon n collateral topic, and ia regard To whoh
the answer ~ the witness Is conclusive
judge NcilsonAnd tho Witness answer wou'd merely
show Mr.. Moultous opinion, Whatever IT was
Mr. Beach-That Ia a Sir. IL might be very proper to
take the answer OF Mr. Mouton to tho question whether
or not he made these declarations but that answer Ia con
elusive upon the counsel upon tho other side, being TO
collateral matter and il not tho subject OF contradiction
Judge Neilson-I think will allow the counsel to put
tho question 10 the witness in the very terms OF the
statements made by Mr. Moulton, not Ia the general
form.
Mr. Egaris-Yonr Honor viii remember that Nr M0ul-
ton stated that he had no conversation with tins witness
OIL the subject OF the " Life III Victoria woodruff
Mr. BcachNo, no.
Judge Neils0n-Y0n put specific question 10 Mr
Moulton now frame your question with regard To that
same matter that you interrogated Mr. Mouoh about
otherwise the might be as to come independent
matter and not TO the question
Mr. Evarts-I have confined it already. Ny question
Il, what he said 10 him 10 Mr. Ton's motives or OBJ
jccts In writing the Life OF Victoria Woodruff"
Judge Neilson-You must coniine that to the very
term. Of the question that you put TO Mr. Monton just
bfr Shearman-Haye the question read
Mr. Eyarts-Wel, remember Ii near enough for all
the purposes OF this examination. ITO the wne,sJ In
that conversation and In stating TO you the motives or
objects OF Mr.. Tlton In writing the Z" Life OF Victoria
woodruff" did Mr. M0ultOn say to you that Mr. Tons
motive or object TO put himself at the head OF the
sprtualss Of the country, and that the Spritualiss
were more than the COngregationaiis's or
ANYTHING to that eject to the effect OF any part of
that statement A. Shall say yes or no to that' OF
shall state what he-whst 1t was'
O. Well you should slate what he said OF that ehre''
Mr. FullertOn-YOr should state tue TRUTH suppose
The Witness-Mr. Tlton told me
Mr. Beach, understood, your Honor that the ques
ton was to be put specifically anu ss"ero" Sio0'"'!
Judge NeilsOn-Yes.
,r Eyarts-t is 10 that effect TO the effect OF any
part Of 1t. u.,..--
Mr. Bsach-very well you must not allow the witness
IN give what he said The question is Did he say that!
Yes or no.
Judge Nelson Yes or no, I should say 70 that
bad iln' psply
preseology that Mr. Evarts has used hs said that sub
stantally.
Mr. Eyarts-very well. Now wha, dd lac sayi A. Tia
said that Mr.. TitOn--
Mr. Beach-That Is not admissible
Mr. Eyarts-My question to Mr.. Moultou WAS whether
he said that anything to that effect or {" the effect OF
any part OF It,
Judge Ncilson-Yes.
Mr. Besch-And tho witness say. he did say that not In
the precise language, but that substantially.
Mfr. Eyarts-Do You mean the who'e-thst he said the
whole OF 1t substantially
Mr. Beacb-Yes.
Mr. Evarts-very well am satisfied
Mr.. Beach-YOu ought TO be-
Judge Nelson-That covers your ground. theni
Mr. Evarts-wel II the answer Is TO be taken In that
way it il but Justice the witness to read it, that he may
500 that II Ia correct
Judge Neilson-Read tho answer, Mr. StenOgrapher.
Tho Tribune senographer read the answer as follows:
"weli he said thathe didn't precisely that phrase
ology that Mr. Eyarts has used-he said that, substa
italy"
The wtness-H II Ia proper, woMd say that
Mr.. Beach-Wat moment.
Mr.. Evarts-wait moment. Mr. Partridge Now
suppose that have right, and that 1t !, the fair thing
to both The present. witness and the preceding witness,
that what he did say should be stated
Mr. Dsach-Iho gentleman has right, under your
Hsao., sa.as % sail Ut iaa, sVayarssilsa whA. MAJ