The Indiana State sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis) 1868-1895, 1875-01-26

pers was to prevent one party from ipiur-
iously using the documents against him, and
also that Tilton had been refused access to
these papers. The witness stated that what
ever the rumors said the letter
came through the newspapers and never
came through him. The letter of August 4,
written by Beecher to Moulton asking for
| the
PAPERS AND DOCUMENTS
in his possession, was also read, stating that
they had been placed in his custody for safe
keeping, and that he (Beecher) cid not ask
for them as a means whereby he might
hurt Tilton. Ex-Judge Porter, holding up
a paper, asked the witness if that
was correct transcript of the account of his
firm with Tilton. The witness stated that
| it was a correct copy of the whole transac-
debts in the account were Sl2, 9Sl, the credit
| total being ths same amount. The witness
said that this was a correct statement SO far
as he knew. The account was offered in
evidence by Ex-Judge Porter. The state
ment of moneys received from the Rev.
Henry Ward Beecher and paid out by the
witness were then offered in evidence. and
read. It appeared that from 1871 to 1874 he
had paid out to Mrs. Tilton, to Theodore
Tilton, TO the Rev A. M. Reade and the
Rev. Il. @. Beattie, sums ranging from S25
to 81 600, which latter was given to Tilton In
| 1878. The total was S6,07S. The
witness continued: These items
were taken from my account sin
/ the ledger. There were some currency sums
which received from Beecber which al
most Immediately paid out. / think this
| happened ON two occasions, and of them L
took no memorandum. l will produce my
ledger in court tomorrow. There never
was at any time an account between my
firm and Mr.. Bsecher, and his name only
appeared on the firms books when placed
Il -, fxvF r,afl On, nf
times OF which took no memorandum
think
THE AMOUNT WAS $500,
and probably on the other occasion it might
have been $500, as think it was a larger
sum on the last occasion. The $1,000 re-
ceived from Beecher did not enter into the
account. On one occasion Tilton deposited
q, 500 in checks with my firm. 1 contrib
uted 81, 500 to the Golden age and sub
scribed $1,000. / do not remember what
time l paid this contribution,
but think it was in the
spring of 1871 That year 1 paid it in
cash. lent Tilton 50, 200, which was not all
repaid. Tilton generally came to me Which
| he wanted to draw money. On December
81, 1870, saw Tilton, when he said he was
going to see Bowen and ask him for his
proofs of Beecher's guilt. he never con-
suited me then about his relations with
Bowen, or about his probable dismission.
I do not remember if anything was
proposed by me to be done: The
next interview / remember with him was
on Decem ber 30th. There never was any
conversation between us at either of these
Interviews as to procuring statement from
| Bowen. At these interviews Tilton said he
had no doubt that the charges preferred by
Bowen against Beecher were true. Tilton,
prior to this, had said that Beecher preached
10 his mlstresses ia Plymouth Church. This
was in the latter part OF 1870. Tilton
did not give any OF the names OF
these witnesses. did not believe
this statement. MY wife at that
attend shortly after the facts OF the case be-
came known to her. Her name is still on
the rolls of the church. We had pew up
to 1872 which / paid for. / never had been
a regular attendant at Plymouth Church.
was there last on the evening of the report
of the committee. L do not remember when
last attended divine worship there. Rob-
inson, my wife's uncle, attended the church.
At this point the court adjourned for the
day.
| M0ULTON'S DISCRIMINATION.
THE INQUIsITIoN COMMENCED BY JUDGE PoR-
TER = SOME EXAMPLES SHOWING THE
THEORY OF THE DEFENsE-THE BATTLE
JUST BEGUN.
The Brooklyn special to the Cinciunati
Commercial, on the the 18Th inst, gives the
following additional description of Moul-
toms cross-e4amination not contained in this
telegraphic account: It was o'clock when
Fullerton got through with his witness, and
at once ex-Judge Porter of Beecher's conn
sci arose, and began that cross-examination
about which we have had so many alarm.
ing prophesies. This was Porters first &C
1Ns-. l. h
stands high among the few men who have
the highest reputation at the New York bar
and his friends have supposed he would fan
outshine his confreres, even Evarts, both as
a cross-examiner and a speaker. In fact
great expectations had been formed of him
on all sides, and hence when he arose, the
first sound of his sepulchral voice was
eagerly watched for. Mr.. Porter, formerly
Judge of the Court of Appeals, is q
man of 80, dark complexioned, square
jawed, thick set, black haired and bespecta-
cled with small black mustache. He
speaks slowly, clearly and impressively;
looks cold and Rhadamanthine, and you al
once suspect that Moulton has now fallen
into the hands of the most remorseless cross
examiner on the Beecher side, who under
stands every detail of the case, and is
crammed full of legal learning. His first
questions to the witness are simple ones
about his age, residence and business; but
he quickly plunges into the heart OF the
matter in way which you
will appreciate only when you get a
verbatim report of the proceedings. He
sought to show that Moulton, while pro.
Tossing to be the "mutpal friend" or both
parties, had been playing into his hands OF
Tilton from the first in all sorts of ways
and had been playing false to Beecher al
unexpected times. Some of the questions
were startling, suggestive, and filed with
J indications as to the course OF the defense
which is evidently TO show that the prosecu.
ton have been guilty OF conspiracy, forgery
perjury and blackmail. For instance, when
Moulton confessed that he had told false
hoods under the pretext of helping Beecher
the following dialogue ensued:
Mr. Porter-Did you consider 1t wrong tC
lie for Mr.. Beecher?
Mr.. Moulton-No, sir.
J Mr. Porter-Did you lie for him?
Mr.. Moulton-Yes, sir.