The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1875-05-11
BEECHER TRIAL.

New YORK, May l0,-ThG Brooklyl
Court was crowded this morning. Tn
FIRST witness was Geo. A. Bell, he testi
fed; l have no remembrance Of the Wes
charges, but remember the deacons' meet
ing after tho Woodruff charges wer'
made. ..'..
Mr.. shearman objected to this evidence
Mr., Fullerton passed to another sub
ject and witness continued: / remcmbel
the interview with Mr.. Beecher in tn
middle OF December, 1870; he asked my
opinion about Tilton's domestic affairs
he said Mrs. Tilton had left her husband
and the question came up about perma
nent separation, and he asked me what
thought about it; | said nothing elSG
could be done; have a letter at homo
calling for this interview,
The witness was not Cross-examined,
The next witness was Lewis j. James
Superintendent Of the Health and Life
Co. He testified l saw Mr.. BeeCher ai
0 A. N, Of the ID Of June, 1873, on The
carriage road nj Well street ferry coming
from the direction Of Columbia Heights
and going in the direction Of Rowson
street; he had downcast expression, and
didn't recognize me,
The next witness was Jerimiah p, Rob,
inson who testified: | know Emma r,
M0ultOn; she is a niece Of mine.
Witness was asked II he remembered
q conversation in June, 1873, with Mrs,
MoultOn in which she related to him her
interview with Beecher on the 25th OF
that month. .N.-...."
To this Eyars objected and General
Prior argued for itS admission on the
ground that this conversation between
the witness and Mrs. Moulton took place
before. 1t was advanced by the other
side that the interview Of June Sd, 1873,
was fabrication, and quoted from Tay-
lOr and Greanleaf on evidence and other
legal authority at some length in support
OF the admission OF witness's testimony.
The concurrence was unanimous in the
course they advocated and stood unchal-
lenged in the law Of evidence. Twas
one Of the lights set forth for the guild.
ance OF truth, and rash would be the
hand that would endeavor. to extinguish
II, While the speaker was in the height
OF his argument he stopped suddenly and
said Il your Honor will pardon me q mo.
ment have an attack Of vertigo, and then
sank down In his chair, windows were
thrown open and in a few moments Pryor
recovered and said he thought he had
made clear case, and was about to con.
tinuc, but was again overcome, dnd he
had TO sit down.
II was suggested that ranoas should he
taken half an hour before the usual time,
but Pryor demurrcd, and rose again and
quoted from General Tracy's address In
regard to Mrs. Moulton's appearance In
the case, where II was imputed that she
appeared rs witness under the influence
OF her husband. The counsel also quoted
from Beecher's testimony, when he said
that Mrs. MoultOn had not made state
ment against him Of her own accord.
Tho counsel offered 10 prove that Mrs,
Moulton, Of her own vOlitiOn, told this
same story before she told II to this court
and jury. Mr.. Pryor then closed sud-
denly, saying that he was unable TO con-
tinue the argument. Gen. Pryor, lean.
ing on the arm Of q friend, then left the
court.
Mr.. Eyarts then replied to the argi-
ment Of Gen. Pryor, contending against
the admission Of this testimony, charging
that II was mere hearsay evidence. Mr..
Evarts was interrupted In his argument
by the arrival Of the hour for recess.
After recess Mr.. Fullerton said that
Mr.. Bell had been kind enough to enclose
him the letter spoken Of in his testimony
which was read by counsel. The letter
was dated December 9th, 1870, asking
Bell to step over to No. l24 as the writer
wanted to see him on important business,
and was signed II. W. d,
Mr.. Evarts then continued his argu.
ment in regard to the offer Of proof by
the other side as 10 what Mrs. Moulton
had told Jeremiah p. Robinson at the in.
tcrview she had on the ID Of June, 1873,
with Bcecher. Evarts argued that this
most dangerous and pernicious fern Of
hearing evidence created by the witness
before he came into court. Was II per-
mitted for Moulton or TiltOn TO bring In
evidence something they had said for the
past three or four years corroborative Of
what they may have said on the witness
stand. s|.. ia I..
Mr.. Prior was still absent from court
and Fullerton replied in his place. He
said: Mrs. Moulton testified TO the inter-
view with Beecher. This Beecher denies,
and he declares that Mrs. Moulton was
acting under the influence Of her hus-
band, and that this story was concocted.
Now how were they permitted to dlsprove
Beecher's statement except by hav.
ing this evidence brought In and
the allegation that II was q
late invention could only be disproved by
the testimony Of this witness. As 10 Ihe
conversation Mrs. Moulton had with him,
counsel quoted from numerous legal au.
thorities, and said that Mrs. Moulton's
position was not changed since June,
1873, when her husband was the best
friend that God ever gave Henry Ward
Beecher, and In 1874 Beecher was led to
believe by two lawyers that Moulton was
q blackmailer, and that Mrs. Moulton
sympathized with her husband, and her
attitude II Bhe came on the stand to-day
would be IA different as light was from
darkness, when Il would be shown that
she whispered this story In the ears Of
her confidential friends and relatives
after the interview occurred. What,
then, became Of the statement that the
story was originated In 1s747
Judge Nelson said there was no doubt
that they all argued to the general rule,
and this evidence would not be offered
save for the nspersion cast In the opening.
What troubled him was that II they re-
served tho evidence, II would be taken "a
evidence In the cause. He would like 10
know what effect Il would have on the
minds Of the jurors.
Mr.. Beach replied that II was not Of.
iered for that purpose, but only 10 clear
Mrs MOult6n's character. l
Mr.. Evafts contended that IL was not
proper evidence 10 bring into the case,
and said that the rule In "l2th Of Wen.
del" was exploded and in II there was
not q word about exceptions, there was
not court in this State which had ad.
mitted evidence under thisexCeption,
Judge Nelson said that the real basis
Of this matter lay in the opening Of de-
iehdants council and II not suppCrtedi
should not have been made. II dtd not
seem 10 be entitled TO the respect ol
being called an uncharilable allegation.