New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-04
Mr.. THTON'S CHARACTERIZATION OF His
WIFE'S OFFENsE.

that conversation sunday. did Mr. Tion say to Mr.
Tracy that he did not make the cargo Of adultery agn"s
Mr.. Beecherf
Mr. Evars-Wei. now, this, suppose. IL some queS"o"
put 10 Mr. Tracy.
Judge Neison-Thc learned counsel puts his qucstio"
from general recollection seems OF Mr. Trays es'-
dcnce.
Mr.. Beach-Certanly do Sir.
Judge Neison-I have not good recollection Have
you got the question:
Mr.. Evarts-No; have not.
MIR. Beach-weil. suppose all remember that Mr.
Tracy testified IN that conversation tlat TtOn expressly
told him that his charge not adultery.
Mr. Evarts-wel, where do you get right N put =
leading question to your witness except on nc ground 90
direct contradiction
Judge Neilson-Yes OF course.
Mr. Evarts-If you TO prove what WAS sild III TINS
interview then we will whether you bring d IA
in rebuttal-whether you have not exhaused the inter
view with this witness your direct examination
Mr. Beach-Wel when Offer To bring 1t IN ~ ainri"r
tive evidence will be time enough to reason the Gie"tos
then.
Mr. Evarts-Tben shall reason the question
Mr. Beach-No, you won't for shant do IT,
Mr. Evarts-Very we'll. then. you are out OF tbs way
Now you here to contradict
Judge Nellson-D0 you find the direct lleSIl"h NAV
| put to Mr.. Tracy
Mr. Beach-NO. cannot refer TO the direct question:
Hero we have got version OF this interview by tDre
witnesses and Mr. Tracy comes and adds to -macs 80
additional declaration. Cannot contradict f" ny '"s
same witnessi
Mr. Evarts-In the terms Of his statement. ycs.
| Mr. Beach, am not bound take the terms OF his
| statement
Judge Neilson-In substance
| Mr. Beaoh-Yes in substance. When he svears 10 N
additional fact az occurring ut interview IN which W.
say did not occur may not contradict 1t by our VII
nessi
Sir. Evarts-There my friend right back where hs
said he would never be.
| Mr. Beach-No amt right back. You quito mis-
| taken. You won't got me back
Judge Neilson-He q right to contradict the Wit
ness.
| Mr. Evarts-IIc has q right TO rebut provided he -
within the rules OF rebutt but he said he would nev
| do IT,
Mr. Beaoh-NO did not
| Mr. Evarts-You offer It conradictng Mr.. Tracys
Mr. Beaoh-We offer It rebuttal and contradictory
| evidence.
Mr. Byarts-very well; now we will take It on rebntta
This interview given in evidence Oy the piaintn 10
a part OF their original and the whole OF H. ana
this witness examined on 1t and gave his evidence
and we have contradcted those witnesses a. To that In
tervcw Now, they cannot recall those Witnesses 70 re-
instate and rebut their former statements.
| Judge Neson--No; think the learned counsel wond
| not do 1t, because II would be waste OF time
Mr. EvartsWe but the laws OF evidence LosicS that.
would not permit be dOnea grayer reason than ta
general waste Of time.
| Judge NeilsOn-I am not go sure.
Mr. Eysrts-They tell their story they are obliged '"
exhaust their story, and contradict thrm Now wh'h
we introduce substantially matter not any point %
the interview concerning which they tell their story o'
new facts OF Mr. Beeeher going 70 PceksAli o. tH' @
| Or the other thing, then rebuttd comes IN
| Judge Neilson-Well that | W .,rs. AMI II To Is
Mr. Evarts-Nol a. - Is the same Conversation ths
SANE interview and thoy have gwen their story about IT.
and there was talk about adultery, and this that and
| tbc other Mr. Tracy has come forward and gwen hs
story AZ to what occurred there and that there was
disclaimer Of adultery Now. tho witness was examined
before if he had been that would not make any dii
ference and II ia nothing but tltomcn OF Ina eae
Judge Neilson-NO: he IL only called &" s"ak 10 any
new matter this point that Mr. Tracy may have AZ
! PRODUCED.
MI Beach-That u all. Sir
Judge Ncilson-Frame your question wh that view
Mr. Evarts-Let see if he was not asked THIS very
| question before
Judge NesOn-lr he WI'' theh ne u'e no' ~ '""o" ~
| now. -
Mr. Evarts-The rule Is thus laid down IN Rex rs Hh-
ditch ct AL English Common Law Reports, page '7'f
Whatever IL a confirmation OF the original ease cannot
which can gwen evidence IN reply l.. tiat I'M.
goes 10 cut down The case on me part "l thc ueu.S
without being any cOAiAHAa''o" VI '"0 "N ~ SN' r
the prosecution.
Now. Mr. Woodruff IS asked. as part Of their direct
case before that roes :" sydeht, ''n'l'"s VII" mfg
Abbott WELL it in his evidence on the 0penn3 '""
Mr. Beach-That was on your crosse Iamina'ion
Yon ssS he CHARGED Mr. Beecher with being an adult
erer that day in my prcsencei A He SAID he had been
90 Didn't T. Gen Tracy was conducting the examine
ton -. DIDN'T him then and say. DO you mean
with your wifeP and not his reply 10 me. No. s4f
| with another womanr"
| The answer Is.
| No Sir: I don't recollect that you said that.
| O. You don't remember that A. No. air.
q Do You remember any aiiuslon TO any other womsA
that day that gersa a III dSas rsSSiest any
guilty Of adultery be didn't say with whom
Now. that Is the whole point of the inquiry Gen.
Tracy says that TltOn got excited and said that Mr.
| Beecher had been guilty Of adultery Then asked
| him Well was II with your wife 4 NO not with my
| wife, but with smother woman" Well however henous
that may be- 1t not part Of the here; that this
whole thing gone through this witness has been
! examined and crossexamined and now we have given
| Mr. Traey's statement concerning IL.
MI Beaoh-If the gentleman had looked little further
| back in the testimony Of Mr. Woodruff he would have
found that in his direct examination he
than the has read He testified that Mr. Mou"n.
AZ the commencement Of the interview, related 70 Nh
Tracy the circumstances
| Mr. shearman-Not in the presence ~ Mr.. riton.
Mr. Beach-That don't make any odds, whether 1t
in the presence Of Mr. Titon not, Str lie then TOLD,
Mr. Tracy that Beecher had been guilty Of sexual inter
| course with Mrs. rilton
| Mr. Eyarts-Mr Woodruff swore TO II; we asked Mr.
Tracy about il and contradcted him he says he did not
Mr. Beach, know that. When the gentleman viii
give me an opportunity 10 drop word here once III
while perhaps will nnd where stand. at any r'''
| what my point H. Now I admit Sir. that Mr. M"ui'"n
and Nj Woodruff upon their former testimony rcateh
that interview with Mr.. Tracy and gave tno'r 'eo "
that they communicated Mr. Tracy the ilet Oh "i
nal iutercourse or adultery what not whatever you
may call AZ.
udye seilson-which you DO not propose now to rehu
| Mr. Beaeh-Nolhing al ALL Sir nothing to do with It.
ff.. md 1aniaa hat