The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-03-31

matter left 70 arbitration. ana was appointed
one OF the arbitrdtors; went TO Moulton's house
Mr. Claim, Nr. Cleveland, Mir. Moulton and Mr..
Triton were there; | heard that Nj. Beechers
matters would be brought III, ana | said
that II Mr.. Beecher', matters we're brought
stated, however. that there an agree
meat that Mr.. Beecher's mat ers should ne BROUGHT
IN. and That being so. agreed 10 cont nue. TO ac as
arollra or; The arotratnrs came 10 an agree
ment; an award was made, calea the "Irlpar-
ute Aeieemeht;" Mr. claim announced the award
10 DE sgneo by Mr.. Beecher Mr.. Bowen and Mr..
Titon, but Mr.. Triton re used 10 sign the paper
until some amendment was made IN the agree
ment; there was an understanding thai certain
papers were TO be destroyed; Titon ana Moulton
agreed TO the burning OF certain papers; the
papers specially agreed TO be burned were Mr.
Beecher's letter OF apology and Tiltons letter to
Bowen OF January l, ls72: there Was check
drawn by Bowen that night for Hilton for $1,000 /;
MI. 1llton SAID he thought Mr.. Moulton ought to
be the custodian OF the tripartite agreement.
2. DID you nave any communication with Mr..
Yes, sir, did
q. How soon after A. About ten or fifteen
award OF $1,000 Mr.. Triton objected to signing It;
the papers were to be sent to Mr.. wilkeson for
engr3ysing ana tn as5 they were signed. vu,.r,.
house aoout burning the papersf A. asked
Moulton whether he had burned the papers and
he said, "on yes, have burned those papers,"
aud ne laughed.
Q. Was anything further said during that con-
versation that you call 10 mind A. No, sir, not
tnat call TO mind now.
q. Do you remember the publication of the
1872 : A. Yes, sir, i remember that puoiicaiion
q. Did you have any conversation with Mr.
Tlton alter the publication Of the woodruff scan.
oal In winch 1t was the subject OF conversation |?
A. did.
Q. When was that conversation9 A. 1t was on
December IL, 1872; am enabled to Tx the time
rom the fact that my wiles brother died very
suduenly, ana my wlie was attending the funeral
at the time TINS conversation took place; 1t was
nv house, in the smoking room; during the
conversation Mr. luton spoke about Mr. Greeley,
ecutor OF the Will OF Mr. Greeley; think 1t was
after the funeral OF Mr.. Greeley that | mad this
talk with IlIton; he referred to the Woodruff
scandal and denounced 1t as
AN INFAMOUS ARTICLE,
and a lie; he SAID there was so much folly
III the tories about vile and Mr.. Beecner tnat
he had written the "true story;" he mad the
manuscript with him; he said Mr.. Beecher had
was no aa s
he spoke in re gard 70 his having written the lie
OF Mrs Woodnah with great regret; ne said he
had not done it; saw him again after December
II; never read the "true story" nor did / ever
see II.
O. DID you know anything OF
ONE SHARE OF TRIBUNE STOCK
which had stood In the name OF 1iltonS A. Yes,
sir; IN conversation with MN once | understood
from what he said that II was owned by mis- father
once wnen he was away his sister came to me with
an OF der from Nun to pay her The interest VI that
snare OF the tribune STOCK Tor his Iather
q. Did you have any conversation with Mr. Til
ton In july 1874 at Mr.. Ovington's house, alter his
wife had lett him A. had a CONVERSATION with
HIM there.
O. what was said on the subject of his wife,s
now do to his vile and Mr.. Beecher A. He said
she rad left him and ne tnougnL that he would
now Smash Elizabeth and MI. Beecner.
q DID you have conversation on January l,
1878, with Moulton on the subject OF these news:
paper schemes and Il so what was said A.
had conversation WI him.
OoJected to anu the question Withdrawn.
m AT r THE TERN d
conversation with Moulton In his house A. did );
l received message from Franklin Woodruff to
20 and see Moulton; the next morning went
round 10 his house IN Remsen street; Mr.. John
Q. Proctor was With me; mad an interview with
him IN tue parlor.
O. What was SAID by him to you on the subject?
(ODJected to and ADMITTEDLY
WIlness-He said ne dldn't know that would
come 10 see him now, that he had been called
blackmailer; he SAID he wanted me to tell my
brother not TO sign the report OF The investg
out OF Plymouth church and out OF Brooklyn for
calling MN q bIackmailer; that he had always
now he would uproot MIN; he said II my brother
slgued the report ne would make another state
men{ ana orinE IN the name OF LADY that would
name then; SAID that mad nothing to DO with
the report OF the committee. though they wanted
me to De a member OF the committee, but as to
making my brother sign or not sign that report,
would have nothing 10 do with It; told
was to be held tnat night, and thought 1t very
likely That he had signed the report; saic If ne
had ne must take his name or il; he didn't state
why he ala not want him to slgn 1t; he SAID q
great deal on the subject OF Beecner's having
Gained him blackmaier; he mad more feeling on
that point than any hing else; ne was now
GOING TO LOOK OUT FOR HIMSELF
and drive Beecher out OF Plymouth church and out
friend. and that he wouldn't be IN the present
roupe Ii he had taken his ADVICE.
view took place ? A. Yes; 1t was mad on August
Is; Mr.. Woourufrs letter to nae was written
August 81.
Q. How long was that alter Mr.. Beecher hao
published his statementi A. / can't remember;
Mr.. Moulton told me tnat ne had been down East
Q. When aid you first hear Tnton charge, II
ever, thai Mr.: Beecher mad been guilty OF adultery
his smashing his vile and Beecher.
Q. DID MI. Til.on ever threaten 10 bring suit Tor
Islander AGAINST ny person IN making this identi-
cal charger A. tnlnk ne ola.
q. When was TT A. Either IN the latter part of
suing a party lor alleging his wlle's adultery with
MIR. beecner; can't tell tle place where ne told
me this.
Q. After the termination OF q recent law suit
gainst Mr. Mouiton aid ne send for you to come
and see hims A. Yes, sir; That WAS December 10,
against MoultOn: my brother went with me to his
house; nad conversation win him IN MS room;
there was no one present besides MUultOn, my
brother and mys self.
q. la that conversation did Mr.. Moulton say to
you Mr. Beecner was liar and lioerrne," and
damn him, II personal violence would do any
good. would cut him DOWN." A. He did; he
SAID SUBSTANTIALLY that; he said he was o liar and
In substance he said the other words.
Mr.. Beach moved to strike out the answer as
they we're putting question that was not put IN
by the plaintiffs counsei, and II was not cOmpe-
teni 10 say the words citeo were ''said III sub
stance" by Mr.. Mouiton.
After an extended DEBATE between counsel and
reading from tie printed testimony on that point,
IL was shown tina. Moulton mad not, in evidence,
USED the words embodied IN the question, SUBJ
stan tally IN his interview with Mr.. Storrs
Judge Nelson said "This Is too vague, you can't
lmpeacn a witness on "a similar SENTIMENT
ne court was then adj burned till eleven O'Clock
this forenoon.
THIRD LETTER FROM mrs. WOODRUFF.