The Portland daily press., 1875-01-29
NEW YORK.
THE SCANDAL.

New York, Jan. 2S.-The Brooklyn City
| Court room was again crowded this mornin e.
| Mr.. Beecher and his wife sat among the Plym-
| outh gathering.
| After the court was opened Judge Nelson
| gave his decision on the point raised yesterday
| by Mr.. Evarts as to Mr.. Woodruff giving re
lation of what occurred at the interview be-
| tween General Tracy, Mr. Moulton and him.
| self when Mr.. Beecher was not present Judge
| Nelson said he had examined the authorities
on the subject and ruled that the witness might
relate all that occurred at the interview.
| Ex-Judge Fullerton here rose and called the
attention of the court to pamphlet published
by the Tribune, and called Part of the official
] report of the TiltOn-Beecher trial, and stated
| that instead of having the evidence only in the
court, there were comments relating to Mr..
Moulton, ex-Judge Morris and the other coun-
sell.
Mr.. Beach quoted extracts from the PAM
phlet to show the manner in which it had been
issued, and stated that it not only bore COM
ments on the trial, but had also the scenes
which took place during the recess. He paid a
tribute to the creditable manner in which Moul-
ton had conducted himself on the witness stand
| during the eleven days examination.
Mr. Evarts also detained against the pub
LEGATION OF the pamphlet and said they were not
| here as actors on the stage.
Judge Nelson said he would confer with the
| editor of the Tribune about the matter.
Testimony of franklin Woodruff.
Frankli B. Woodruff then deposed that
| Mouton proceeded to tell Tracey about the
case, that the points of the case published by
| Mrs. Woodruff were true. MOultOn said he
had been trying to keep tine case covered up.
| Tracey said that he did not recommend lying,
but in this case it was perfectly justifable.
| He also recommended that either Mculton or
Tton be sent to Europe.
Crosse xamination.
introduced Moulton to you on thatoccasion.
I think you asked Mr.. Moulton if the scandal
rested on anything else but the letter of contri
ton and the other papers, and he said that there
also remained the statement made by Mrs Til
ton to her husband. I do not recollect being
present on any other occasion in the study than
at this interview. have heard the s'true story
read. This interview began about or in the
afternoon, and ended about 10 at night. L
| think we had supper which lasted about an
hour, and the balance OF the time was spent in
discussing the Woodruff scandal. The pistol
scene came up for discussion, and Mr.. Mouton
said it was incorrectly reported Then L think
you read the story paragraph by paragraph.
don't remember that Mr. Moulton at that inter-
view denied telling this interview to Mrs.
Woodruff, nor did he admit having told it.
Counsel read portions of the Woodruff arti
Gle, and asked witness if Mr.. Moulton denied
telling them to Mrs. Woodruff at that inter-
view.
The witness replied that he had no remem-
brance of the parts OF the scandal read, as he
took no interest in them when they were dis
CuSSeu dt bUo lubeINioW. w tutuh yUu
advised Mr.. Moulton to deny the Woodruff
card, in so far as it related to him. was in
the habit of going to Moulton's In 1871 met
Mr. Tilton there. He was out of employment
and wished to start a paper, and said $4,000
or $40, 900 would be enough to start it with He
announced that he was going to start it, and
advanced $4,000. There was about ST., 900 sub
scriDed, and Mr.. Tilton subscribed either $4,000
or $6000 paid in $500 and got his note for
that amount 1 saw Mr.. Southweck and told
hiy,,a hout I how hp hu
was released from it.
TiIton Called.
This concludes the testimony of the Witness
and ex-Judge Fullerton called Theodore Tilton
who took the chair.
Mr.. Evarts said he objected to the witness
being sworn. Mr.. Evarts then proceeded to
argue that Mr.. Tilton could not testify against
his wife and was quoting from authorities
when the court took a recess.
When Tiltons name was called, immediate
ly the court room was thrown into the greatest
confusion by Tiltons approaching and taking
position to be sworn on the witness stand.
Who called his name was not heard and for a
few moments the widest excitement ensued.
People stood on their chairs to gaze at Tilton,
whispered mutterngs were heard throughout
the court room and several stamped their feet
which could not be stilled by the Judge, who
gazed in bewilderment TiltoD, however
seized the bible firmly and the clerk had pro.
ceeded as far as, 'You, Theo. Tilton, do hereby |
SOlCHuIy oWcdl buoV, WuCh hO Nho iuuCliupG-
ed by Mr. Evarts, who rising excitedly to his |
feet, exclaimed 81 object to this Witness"
For few moments the audience forgot them |
selves and the scene that had proceeded Til |
tons first appearance on the stand, aud it was |
with difficulty that order could be restored |
The court officer as Evarts made his remarks |
withdrew the bible from Tilton's hand and /
stepped back. Titon in a constrained manner,
sitting in the chair, gazed at his counsel and |
waited for what Evarts had to say. The audi
SuhS0A1 and attention directed to |
Evarts.
Mr.. Evarts argued that neither at common
law nor by statute could Mr.. Tilton be wit
ness to mpeach his wife'S honor
After the recess Mr.. Evarts, after short
consultation with Mr.. Abbott one of the
counsel for defense, continued his argument
citing authorities and quoted the case of the
King against Love, 18th East, 1887 the port
being to fix the responsibility of child in
case OF bastardy upon the fugitive father. 1t
was held by the courts that the husband could
not be heard as witness to prove the imputa-
ton of the criminality of the wife. In COM
mon law adultery was not considered crime.
This case came up in another case of the King
against the inhabitants, 9th East, 1927 He
also referred to the case of Cape against Cape,
which he said was more modern case, and
also the case of Dennison against Page. Judge
Castor of North Carolina in case tried be- |
fore him says that husband after divorce
can't prove the adultery of his wife on her
prosecution therefor. statute, said the
counsel, was passed in 1867, which altered the
relations between a husband and wife as to
their testifying. In the common law no party
to suit could be a witness as it then stood. The
1867 act was intended to moderate and qualify
the evidence of a husband and wife on the
matter pertaining to their interests Our leg
slation intended to liberalize the evidence of
both parties to the suit. Counsel saw nothing
that was competent in the common law to
prove that Tilton could be a witness in this
case What precluded Mrs. Tilton from testi-
tying in the case? Nothing She was not to
prove anything wrong against plaintiff or dis
grace her children,
Gen. Pryor argued on behalf of Tilton
in the dispute. The question was this: Was a
plaintiff in an action competent witness in
own behalf? Common law excluded all par
lies interested in the suit in which they were
ntere, ted. We had now attained to humane
and enlightened degree that a criminal indicted
was allowed TO testify on his own behalf. In
1874 the barrier was removed by the legislature
IF New York from party interested in case
estifying in his own behalf. By subsequent
alteration of phraseology he was compelled to
estify. This was the law which governed this
case and would allow him to tell the story of
his own sad wrong Counsel quoted a number
# cases growing out of the act of 1857.
The counsel read his quotations from paper
which he had drawn up with great care and
he selection of case after case was ratified off
With lightning rapdity and spectators who had
allen into an indolent condition during Evart's ,
Irgument were stirred up with fresh vitality by
len Pryor's clear resonant tones and the
weight of elaboration was altogether in his fa-
or He challenged the other side to show an
ct since 1857 that was in conformation to that
ule. Argument was not completed when court
dlourned t
MIR Bowen's Testimony.
The interest of the tlial will be greatly S
nv Mr.. Henry G. BoWen's 'testi-