The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1875-05-07

contract between yourself an Mr.. Illton relating
contract may ns Terminated by either party az
ans time py paying 10 tie Diner party the sum OF
CONSENT, ana In no otner way.1 DO yon recollecI
his calling the attention Of the aroltraiors TO that
o. And DO you also recoeci, Mr.. Bowen that he
called the attention OF the arOitrators 70 the other
contract, ia respect to tie DAILY Cnton or the
Brooklyn Ufion, sections aud IL, which will
readY
Mr.. Fullerton then read a lengthy agreement,
entered into between Mr.. Bowen aud Mr.. Titon,
reclilng the terms OF the contract.
q. DO you recollect ms calling attention TO that?
A think he did.
Mr.. Evarts-You understand those contracts are
MIR. Fullerton-YeR, but want 10 know whether
the attention Of the arDltrators was called 10 the
10 WITHSTAND didn't Mr.. Tilton In that arb.
tration base his claim Tor damages upon the re-
spectIVe paragraphs wnich | have now called your
attention Tor A. don't remember whether he
ald entirely; he presented all the case from his
O. can your attention to the letter OF February
I, 1871, from Mr.. Beecher TO Mr.. Moulton and ask
whether you knew of its existence al the time
either OF the arbitration the signing OF the trip
artite agreements A | have no recollection oilt
q. now call your attention 10 the letter OF the
same date, from Mr.. Beecnor to Mr.. Tilton. Did
you know OF that A. did not.
Q. And did you know anything OF the existence
OF the letter commencing, "Ihe blessing Of God
rest upon your II has no date, believer A. No,
Q. call your attention to the letter OF February
5. iS72, and ASK the same question with regard 10
that icing there Qndicating) A. No rec
objection OF IL whatever.
@. Did you know anything at that time OF the
charge Mrs. Tilton had made against Mr.. Beecher
IN writing
Mr. Eyarts objected on the ground that 1t was
not material or proper.
Mr.. Beach-We propose to prove he had no
Y knowledge.
\ mr.. FuIlerton-This is concerning no knowledge;
II is competent Tor W TO prove that he was entire
ly ignorant oil the existence OF this correspondence
ana OF these various papers which have been given
IN evidence mere, mt the time OF the signing OF the
triparIe agreement
~ 4
haven't cared anything about these letters; this
is not controversy between Mr.. Bowen and Mr..
Beecher as to whether he should be held TO the
tripartite agreement
BOWEN Nor AWARE OF MRS. TILToN's CHARGE.
BY Mr. Fulerton-Did you know anything OF the
existence OF any charge which Mrs. Tlton had
made against Mr.. Beecher IN wrIungS A. did
not
q or any retraction OF that charger Al did
q Now Mr. Bowen, understood you to say
that you informed Mr.. Beecher on the Monday fol-
Mr.. Tilton A. Idid.
q. what time in the day was tnatf A. Itwasin
the evening; It was after tour O'Clock, should
Judge.
TO You which is marked Exhibit A 2 A. twas al
ter that letter was received.
q. You had received that letter before you told
Mr.. BeecnerY A. Yes sir; l received IL in the
morning and told HIM In the evening.
BY Mir. Beach-What time, with reference to the
receipt OF the letter, was the relation OF Tilton
sundsred entirely with your paperP A. On the
Y
by Mr. Fullerton-1 call your attention TO this
evidence OF Mr.. Beecher:-'Q. Well, did Mr. Mou-
ton say taat Mr.. BOWEN charged taat Sop had con-
said so was only hesltating as TO whether II was
IN that internew or NOT ne said a 50 a. some one
about this Tune A. Yes, sir q. Wen, what did
you reply TO that A. think laughed; denied
III wnen l confess adultery TO Mr. Bowen
l am sure II Will be impressed upon my mind.
Q. Dld you say 20 him on That subject whether
Mr. Bowen mad ever made any such cnar-e to
you personally? A. l said to him from the origin
OF the diifculties between Mr.. Bowen and me
ana again December 20; there had been Several
adIudicauons, arbitratlons-that is, there mad
been maay CONVERSATIONS, but Mr.. Bowen had
never had any difficulty with me except business
difficulty, and that ne never, under any crcum-
stances, made statement which lmplcaFed my
moral cnaracter.n
Mr.. Evarts-How does this become . subject or
Mr.. Beach-Contradicting Mr.. Beecher.
NJ. Evarts-But II Is not redirect; 1T does not
Mr.. Fullerton-It is a question we omitted 70
put In the direct examination inadvertently.
Judge Nellson-lnadvertentys
Mr. Fuller My attention was called to
1t during recess oy Mr. Beach
Mr. Evarts-rhis IS a conversation given on
part from Mr.. Beecher 10 what passed between
him and Mr.. Mouton-Mr Beecher and Mr.. Moul-
conversation between himself and Mr.. Beecher.
Mr. Fullerton You mad better hear my question
FIRST. nv question has not been put, sir. have
been waiting Tor my learned adversary to hunt up
papers. My question is tnls-Did you at any time
implicated his moral character Wait now under
the objection.
here is as to q conversation between Mr.. Moulton
and MIR Beecner, ana Mr.. Beecher speaks OF that
conversation IA contradiction OF Mr.. Moulton. Mr..
Bowen cannot be called to contradict Mr. Beecher
in that statement. because the only statement
passed between MIN and Mr.. Moulton tMr. Eyarts
read the testimony as quoted by Mr.. Fullerton,
and continued. All that is given is part OF tue
conversation between Mouton and Beecher. Mr..
Beecaer had 90 right 10 testify IN regard 70 what
passed between MI. Bowen and him.
Mr.. Fullerton-We think the question is proper
one.
Judge Netson-I don't think it is a proper one.
! don't tniuk we can take that
STRUGGLE OVER THE WOODSTOCK LETTER.
Woodstock letter from the witness aud offered
II la evidence. II Is letter from Bowen TO lnton,
MIR. Eyarts objected and asked how It was ma
tcrldl
AR. Fullerton-lt is a letter TO which attention
was called by the other side.
Mr. Evarts-Not IN the first instance.
Mr. Fullerton-Yes slr, IN the nrst instance.
They asked Mr.. Bowen to refer tolt aud give It's
date, ana he went to the letter ana ils date.
air. Eyaris-I dldn': ask HIM the cate. asked
him how old the Woodstock letter was, and no
salG he couldn't tell without looking az 1t. That's
all. The Woodstock letter was spoken OF by the
afbtrators as one Of those papers that were TO be
disposed or Nothing said about bur mug 1t, but u
was 70 be returned. MIR. Bowen differs from them.
That does not give rlgnt TO read It.
Mr. Beach-Inis letter, SIR, SHOWN to Mr..
gard to ID was 70 TINS eTect:-'Q Did You stare to
Sr. Bsecner what Mr.. Iilton proposed to with
that letters A. Yes, sir. O. what qua you say
upon that subjectr A. | told hlm Mr. luton iu-
tended to publish II. q. what did Mr.. Beecher
say A. Nj. Beecber said that the statement
that he mad ever confessed TO Mr. Bowen was en-
trey untrue; he said he HAD mad diflee with
Mr.. Bowen ana settlements with Mr.. Bowen, and
Mr. Bowen mad never raised with him at any
such settlement any question OF adultery: he said
ne presumed he knew what that portion OF tue
letter referred tor sc. | propose to show by the
production OF the letter ana Dy the EVIL
dence OF Mr. Bowen that the statements
OF Mr.. Beecner upon that subject were uu-
true; That TINS letter having been referred % IN
tnis letter winch you submitted to Mr.. Beecner-
Mr.. Beecner having made remarks concerning
1.-THE Woodstock letter aud Its contents-why,
we suppose, sir, II naturally and legally draws IN
tne Instrument ITSELF TO be taken IN connection
with the commentaries: that this part oil the EVIL
dence ana conduct OF MIR. BeeoBer cannot be
properly understood except IN Connection VITA