New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-05-11
THE TILTON-BEECHER TRIAL.
JEREMIAH P. ROBINSoNs TESTIMONY EX-
CLUDED.

JEREMIAH P. ROBINsoN's TESTIMONY EX-
CLUDED.
RCRRAsED INTEREST IN THE TRIAL DURING ITS
LATTER pAYs-LARGx NUMBERS PRESENT YKsrER-
pAY-MuCH OF THE DAY SPENT IN ARGUMENTS
BETWEEN CoUNsRI-JEREMAH p. RoBINsoN's
TESTIMONY ABOUT MRS. MoULroN's STATEMENTS
WITH REGARD TO HER INTERVIEW WITH Mr..
BEKGHKR ExCLUDED-MR. BELL rEsTIFIEs con-
CORNING CONVERSATION WITH Mr.. BEECHER
IN REGARD TO Mr.. TiLroN's HoUsEHoLD-TEs-
TuMoNY FROM MRS. ROBERT EDDY, LEWIS C.
JONES AND OTHERS.
In the Tilton-Bee trial yesterday George A.
Ben was recalled by the plaintiffs counsel and testi-
fed about his conversation with Mr.. Beecher In
December. 1870. Lewis G. james was called for the
plaintiff and testified that he had Mr.. Beecher
jeremiah p Robinson was recalled, but his
evidence was objected to. Long arguments en-
sued lasting nearly all day, and Mr.. Robinsons evil
denoe was finally excluded Mrs. Robert Eddy and
Mrs Moulton began to testify about the alleged In
terview on June 2, 1873, but the main evidence
Mary Catharine Mcdonald testified in relation to
Mrs Tiltons visit to Monticello, and in regard to
Miss Bessie Turner's movements at that time.
Frederick W. Mitchell gave some minor evidence
for the plaintiff
HEIGHTENED INTEREST IN THE TRIAL.
The latter days Of the trial possess interest in the
uncertainty of their developments, which draws
together a more curious crowd of spectators than
has been seen since the more important witnesses
left the stand. The expectation that some OF those
witnesses will be recalled and the probability that
some Of the contradictions in the evidence will be
brought out more ceSrly as the rules of law, mar
rowing in their application, exclude extraneous
matter intensity the public desire to see and hear
the principal characters in the greatlegal drama now
10 near its close. Ii is probable that the audi
ences will be large from this time until the verdict
of the jury or their disagreement, is announced.
Yesterday the courtroom much crowded as
on Friday, and the multitude listened impatiently
70 long dry legal discussions with the hope of hear
ing some interesting testimony when these fin
ished. An unusual circumstance, which attracted
immediate attention, was the placing OF an array
Of law-bOoks the table of the plain
tiff7s counsel i'll front of Mr.. TitOn and
Mr.. Pryor. The meaning of this proceeding was ex-
planned to be that attempt would be made by the
plaintiff counsel to introduce evidence to show that
Mrs. MoultOn, about the time of her alleged inter-
view with Mr. Beecher On June q 1878, had
lated what claimed to have occurred at that in
terview TO other persons Anticipating opposition TO
this evidence from the defendants counsel, Mr..
Pryor had prepared himself to argue the point, and
had brought with him the authorities which he in
tended to cite
audience expected hear
see Mrs. Woodruff were disappointed, she not
called. Mr. Beecher was present during the morn
ing with his wife, but did not return IN the
afternoon. This has become of late almost his regu
lar custom. Mrs. Beecher is never absent now, and
she attends closely not only to the testimony but to
the arguments of counsel.
LEGAL WAR OVER EVIDENCE CONCERNING
MRS. MOULTON'S STATEMENTS.
The principal incident of the trial Yesterday was
the calling by the plaintiff, Of jeremiah P Robin
scn II was intended to show that Mrs. MOultOn
had told him the incidents of her alleged interview
with Mr. Beecher on June 2, 1878. This led
TO the anticipated legal battle. Mr. Fuller
ton. who had been examining the witness
on preliminary points, soon as Mr.. Evarts made
an objection said "Well Sir, Of my associates Is
ready to argue it," and sat down. Judge Nelson
sand that he ready TO hear the arguments of
counsel III regard TO the adInissbiity OF the evil
sience Mr. Pryor then arose and began his ar
gument. He stated the proposition of the PLAIN
tiff to be that when the evidence of witness
was mpugned on the ground that it was recent
fabrication brought about from some special inter
est influence, it competent to prove that the
witness had told the story prior to the date of the
supposed fabrication, and before the existence OF
the imputed interest or influence. He claimed that
Gen. Tracy had intimated in his opening address
that Mrs MoultOn had been influenced in her state
ments by her husband, and that Mr. Beecher in his
testimony had made similar intimatlon about Mrs.
NoultOn. To cOunteract these asserted mputatl0ns
against Mrs. MOultOn, the plaintiff wished to show
that the lady had told the circumstances OF her al
Legged interview with Mr. Beecher to Mr.. Robinson
about the time when the interview occurred.
Mr. Pryor began his address very slowly, but
warming with his subject he became very energetic
In manner. He spoke in the main in high key,
occasionally changing TO a heavy bass tone with
startling abruptness. He apparently very
nervous, and picked up his law-b books, opened them
over his arm, and read his authorities rapidly
that the stenographers could hardly keep up with
him. His gestures were very torcihle, and ne seemed
Re put his whole strength into the work. Judge
Nelson listened closely TO this argument, and the
rersons in the audience were very attentive, ana
kent their ewes fixed upon the speaker. suddenly
Mfr. PRYOR stopped in the middle OF sentence when
he had been uttering in loud voice, pressed bis
hand 10 his brow, and said faiteringiy
If your Honor please, have an attack
Of vertigo" The windows were quickly raised
NV order of Judge Nelson, while Mr.. Pryor sank
back into his chair and the counsel crowded around
him. Rejecting offers of assistance by strong
effort Mr. Pryor again to his feet and attempted
to proceed with his speech. He had pronounced only
nll N