New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-07-03

cecdings he stood lower in the scale than he did at
the final vote, which was nine to three In iNor vi
defendant. The juror would not state
whether the plaintiff ever stood as low ~
10 H. On the other. hand the woes
on more than one occasion stood exac'y
eaual-sx 10 six. his occurred. however,
after all hope OF arriving at unanimous verdict on
either side given up, and the juror Saih reSfc
ing this equality of yOt', that Ii was explained :"
him in conversation that those who had altered ieir
vote 80 AZ 10 make fhc ballots balance did so rather
| BIZ way of experiment than as hopngto influence the
result.
The demand to see the printed testimony on 'er-
tain points :lat the jurors might Judge for them
selves of lis value was The result Of the long dis
cnssions The testimony delivered on the witness
stand became confused in the minds OF many Soi'
of the iuroIs held diauetrieally opposite views Oh
points that were considered vital to The case. Inc
only means of settling such discussion was 10 sehd
for the printed testimony Az soon as tins had been
furnished fresh ballots were cast and the result APP
poared in favor of The defendant.
The onestion was put to the juror whether the
| testimony OF MIS-. Moulion came i'll dispute
lie answered in the negative adding that Mrs Moni
| ton produced a very favorable impression on inc
minds of the jnrors generally. Those vino were Ill
favor OF Mr. Beecher could not explain 1t. No rc-
Election of any kind was cast OH her Iicri'Fllh'"hE
was in no instance brought prominently into dispute
The tino vote Of nine To three in favor oi the de-
fcndant was the result of information which Inc
| iurv received that il had got abroad through the
uress thai the nry stood eleven 10 one III iaN"f OF
! fine plaintifi Anewsioy was heard yelling ms "ni
beneath the windows of the room III which me jury
were confined IL was considered that 'suoh u H'"'-
rcut did great injury 10 the defendant as II was 10
tally unt,rc and ballot was east, with the result
! gvc,, in conrt yesterday morning.
The Juror when questioned regarding the allcg'd
signaling of the jury by friends of IN" defendant
MIR Sherman and othcrs-strcnuously denied that
any such thing. OF anything that could be mistaken
for it, had ever taken place. lie understood, after
bcinr DISCHARGED. that he himself had been accused
of responding to the signals of Mr.. Murray "i
| pIynouth Church The charge utterly
! without foundation. and the only eXcise
| for its having appeared consisted III the
! fact that Nh Murray Ou one occas.on HAD 'arth'
sight Of him II, he was looking from window. ANA
| smiled in rccogntion hcng acquainted WIN NM
| He. however turned aside without acknowledging
! The recognition and moved away from the window
The thought of such thing signaling Lad never
entered he minds of the Jury and nion oi II had
never come up from first Ia last. They nnlccd men
! in windows opposite waving hands ara hmk'nR
motions. and had gone to the windows to see what
| II meant. biii incN NEVER lHouEH' VI
that such motions were intended aS signals.
The Juror was questioned very closely regarding
the statement made by the foreman OF The jury III
conrt Tia, the testimony Of Loader. Price and LeYS
; had no effect whatever on the mind, Of The Jury.
He confirmed This statement i'll every particular
This testimony, which offered by Mr.. Beach al
the Gloss, of his tummng up had no influence ri all
on the minds Of the jury. II was utterly disie-
c,rlod He had not heard II so much a, mcniencd
and tbc case WAS considered on its own merit. ouIie
oua1t from this testimony introduced at the last
hour.
In all their discussions the jury kept one point
prominently before their cyc'-thc question "i Mr.
Recclcr's alleged adultery. Every subject "f d'a'"
that came up was examined f. ihi, end What docs
prove or dspToyc concerning the alleged charge o
adultery? was The question in every Instance. Ac-
curdingly great portion OF the evidence was lald
inside irrelevant to the main question: ara Tor me
most part ONLY certain portions Of the testimony of
| The chief Witnesses IN the case wastak"n up Around
these center> tie battles of the jurors Iagcd. The
Confession" of Mr.. Tilion Of Dee. 30 was con-
-;dcrcl a vital point in the ca'e and it came up
AGAIN and again for debate. BY that letter Inc jury
led tia; sir. Rcechcgs cause stood or fell. TIE
question with regard to il. as debated by
tie irv was whether tic "tonirSson iin-
! n;od an accusation of adultery or of improper
soEoiil,rn on the par Of Mr. hccchcI The majority
Of the jurors held that il only implied charge OF
! improper solicitation, aHd th,i was untrue. Ia 10
instance was az unanimous verdict arrived al on Til,
psiAt althougI it WAS the one most Frequently dis
| c,ls,,A.
/ Another point considered Of great importance hy
! the iu,y was Mrs. Monitol'. account Of th" infer
view hci yvccn herself AM Mr.. Bcecher whrreat ac-
| corling TO her test nony on the WiinrSs stand Mr.
| -. nd Ia
defence advanced aih "a Thu point - show that
Mr. Brcch.r wa ut Peel ~k'll That afternoon and
that re could not have held the alicgcd interview nj
! the time and place sworn 60 ly Mrs. Monitor. This
point was almost as vigorously contested rs
the other. she decision at which the iury
arrived was singular one. All acIeci
that Mr. Bocclcr was al pcckskill on the afternoon
| Of the day on which Ms. Monlon testified tha: h"
was at her house. The majority thought that M
Bccchcr could not have been NJ Nh Moultons house
| after ~ O'cori in the day. Bat many considered
that the alibi was no; proved, and 10 nnaniinous
verdict was n any time arrived at on thi' point.
| Another topic that was constantly brought up was
fine letters of Mr. Iecchcr-thc TAGGED clrp letter
! the lei; Ter containing the words. Il humble myself
before Theodore Tilton rs before my God" end
others. On the exact sense of these letters opinions
varied considerably, and again no unanimous verdict
was arrived at.
These were some Of the principal points discussed
and other points of the tcsiin.sny brought 10
bear on them OF both sides. The testimony OF Bessie
| Turner was the whole received fayoraby. The
crcf fault fonnd with il by the majority was
that il was little too highly colorcd; hut
| the substance of it was accepted as true. Frank
Mouton'- testimony occasoncd good deal of dis
| cussion II was not impcachcd as a WHOLE though
the majority thought that Mr. Bccchcr had bren in
| cautious and unwise in making so intimate Il friend