The Portland daily press., 1875-05-13

tlce was to nave the WlCneSs eWoih oAhu 'iiS
papers given under oath.
Mr.. Evarts said the subpoena was enough.
The Judge said witness was directed to
bring the papers, and she had done so.
Mr., Fullerton-She is summoned, not as
an express messenger, but as witness, and
the other side could not have the papers I'M
less from her as witness.
Judge-I shall not give any directions
about it. If witness has been subpGnaed to
bring papers and has done so, that satisfies
the court. The question is whether you can
attack witness for not delivering the papers.
Mr.. Evarts called for the opinion of Lord
Darman, unfolding the contrary decision.
Fullerton argued that the case called fol
was different, in as much as particular pa
per was asked for, while here it was an omni-
bus clause, "produce all papers, ETC."
Judge-You have nothing to do with this
Fullerton; you can't cross examine her.
Enthusiastically not, unless she il
sworn, and that is our objection.
Evarts-What has the plaintiff to do witt
this?
Fullerton-I think he has something to dc
with almost everything on this trial, and WE
mean to have our hand in.
Evarts argued that the papers were before
the court, and the court could direct them to
be produced.
Judge-I don't feel like giving any direc.
tons.
Mr.. Evarts also argued that no witness was
entitled to be sworn on his or her part. lie
understood that there was no objection in this
case by witness, except thst the production
should be more voluntarily.
Mr.. Shearman here called upon Mrs. Wood
hull for the letters, and she walked around
and whispered with Messrs. Sherman and
Evarts.
Mr.. Fullerton-It is due to the administra-
ton of Justice to instruct the witness. that she
is not compelled to give them up.
Mrs. Woodruff said she wished to make an
explanation to the judge. The letters she
had were few and unimportant She thought
an explanation due at this state of the trial
The nature of the letters is creditable to her.
self and the gentleman who wrote them, and
she had no disposition to keep them back
Perhaps his honor is aware that she has been
imprisoned several times for publishing this
scandal, her office ransacked and her letters
taken away, and she has reason to believe
that some of her private letters are in pos
session of the defence as well as the prosecu-
ton. That however, was but her private
opinion. She then handed the letters to
Tracy.
After counsel had looked over the letters,
Mr.. Evarts announced that they would not
call Tilton for the present.
Mr., Fullerton here claimed the right to see
the papers while witness was in court, other
wise the prosecution might be taken at dis
advantage. His honor might direct the de-
fence to go on with Tilton's cross examina-
ton now. After awaiting an hour for the
papers, the person who produced them was
in court ready to give any explanation, but
perhaps she could not be produced hereafter.
The judge inquired whether Mr.. Evarts
would undertake to produce the lady here
aftgr in case they cross-examined Illton
about the letters.
Mr.. Evarts said ladies generally have will
of their own, and that lady as much as any
of them, and the defence could send
duces tecuno.
The Judge decided that if the defence
cross-examined Tilton hereafter, they should
have Mrs. Woodruff in attendance.
John Napoleon Laughie, employed at
Delmonico's down town restaurant was re-
called and gave some measurements as to the
height of the saloon from the street and its
distance from neighboring restaurant.
Francis d. Moulton was re- called and ex-
amined by Judge Morris in reference to his
visit to Beecher, in December, 1870, when he
demanded back Mrs. Tilton's retraction. He
was asked did he use any such language to
Beecher as that he (Beecher) should like a
generous views
"No," answered Moulton pulling his
moustache.
Being further questioned about Beecher's
testimony, witness denied that at the inter-
view of January l, 1872, when Beecher wrote
the contrition letter, he was asked to sign 1t,
and declined, saying it was Moulton's memo
randa. He denied that he gathered up the
papers from the table before asking Beecher
to sign them. Then, on second thought, he
said he did that BECKER might read them.
The letter was read before it was signed. He
did not treat it as a memorandum or tell
Beecher he would burn or return it after u.s.
ing. During Beecher's dictation of the letter
he did not, as he remembers, stop Beecher to
ask if he had taken it down secretly. 1t was
word for word from his dictation. AS soon
as it was finished Beecher read it.
Counsel here read from Beecher's testimo-
mony that Moulton told him about the inter-
view with Bowen in his (Moulton's) house
in Clinton street in which Bowen looked up
at Pages portrait of Beecher, and said 81
never can be reconciled to that man."
Witness said he never told this to Beecher
in Clinton street.
Beecher's testimony as to what happened
when he called at Moulton's office February
8, 1872, was next read. to the effect that
Moulton pretended not to see Beecher for a
time, and gave him cold recognition, etc..
and that Moulton complained that Tilton was
suffering from poverty, etc. The witness said
he had no such conversation with Beecher
whatever that day, and did not see him at
his office, or treat him with harshness. His
impression is he was at home sick that day.
He did not suggest to Beecher to use his in
huence to have certain members of the con-
gregation appointed as a consulting committee,
to have the differences between him and Hilton
settled by arbitration. L. was a settlement
of the differences between Bowen and Tilton
that was talked about on June, 1873. 1t was
not agreed upon by him and Beecher that
Kinsella should be sent for to come around
to Beecher's the next morning. Beecher did
not at the interview of May l, 1873, ode
nounce Tilton very largely" When Beecher
called to Moulton's house. Dec. 80, 1870, and
had an interview with Tilton, Beecher did
not request witness to be persent. He de-
MED that he suggested to Beecher the card
which he (Beecher) drew up for Tilton, to be
laid before the church committee, and which
saws 81 learn that Mr.. Beecher has done me
Justice etc. During the interview in his
study November, 1872, he did not say to
Tracy, speaking of the contrition letter, shat
is memorandum of conversation l had
with Beecher."
Tracy did not say that letter seems to i'm
ply an attempt by Beecher on Mrs. Tilton.s
virtue, or anything of that import. Iracy's
testimony that Tilton on the occasion read
him the ''true story" is untrue, and that paper
was not in the room. Witness denied that
any such language was used by Tracy at that
interview as that perhaps the charge OF Mrs.
Tilton that Beecher made improper proposals
was the result of misunderstanding on her
part, or that Tracy made any such suggestion
as that Tilton, his wife and Beecher should
go before some influential citizen and agree as
to what were the facts, and then destroy the
documents. He did not then ask Tracy what
could be done for Tilton if the matter was
settled in that way. There was no PROPOSE
ton made by Tracy to leave it to one person
or any number of persons and then destroy
the documents.