New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-12-29
MR.. BEECHER AGAIN SUED,
MOuLTON WANTS $4,000.

rHE md TMENT FOR LIBEL AGAINST Mr.. MoULTOS
THE GROUND or sUIT-TnE PLAINTIFFS At
ToRNEYs RErICENT-PossIBiLrTY OF TIIR WHOLE
SCANDAL BEING REoPENBD-THE COMPLAINT.
The suit of Francis ID. MoultOn against MIR.
Beecher for malicious prosecution has increased public
In the affairs Of Plymouth Church and its pastor,
and many profess to believe that the great
scandal will be wholly revived and thoroughly siited
this Winter. Some people asserted yesterday that the
suit merely piece Of bravado on the part of Mr.
Mouon. and they even doubted whether snch suit
could DO maintained. Friends OF Mr.. Becoher considered
II TO be one OF the series attacks with which they de-
clsred his enemies systematically pursuing him.
Gen Roger A. Pryor, who is one OF Mr.. Moutop's
attorneys, told TRIBUNE reporter that, at present, he
could say nothing about the suit against Mr. Beecher
except that IL would be tried. What counsel would be
employed for the plaintiff what testimony would be I'D
dnoed, who would testify and how soon the trial was
likely TO take place questions which he could not
now answer. ASK Mr.. Mouon." he said "perhaps he
Will tell you something" But Mr. MOulton declared that
no had not word to say.
MI sheaIman also refused express any views In
gard to tho suit He did not know who would be Mr.
Beecher's counsel. because Mr Beecher had not yet
taken any action in the case.
Samuel ID. Morris, who Mr. Tlton5 attorney in the
great trial. said in reply to question whether Mr. Mou-
toms suit not affected by Mr.. Btechers expressed
willingness TO withdraw his charges against Mr. Moul-
ton and ito nOHo prOse9ui entered. Certainly
not except that Mr. Beechers conduct furnishes an al
dtiona reason for bringing such action MT Beech
ers desire enter n0lie prosq is only an aggrava-
ton because it would leave Mr. Moulton without any
opportunity prove the truth Of the alleged libel ard
to prove that the Indictment false 1t would be
strange state of affairs il person, for wicked
purpose and To accomplish improper end,
could procure citizen to be falsely indicted and thus he
subject stigma that would be cast upon him. and
then ut the instigaoD of his he should be do
prived Of the opportunity to show that the accusation
against him was false and malicious"
Roporter-Wi this suit open the entire question AT
issue last Wintcri
MIR Morrs-It opens the question whether the indct-
ment false true in the suit against Mr. Moulon
The cause OF the action cea y and succincty stated
in tho complaint You may say that declined to discuss
the suit
Mr. Morris also stated that the case could not pos
siby be reached In al short time three weeks, MS
some persons had asserted. Mr. Pryor and himself were
the only counsel as yet retained by Mr. Moulton
GEN. TRACY's SURPRISE.
The frat intimation that Gen Benjamin L. Tracy re-
the suit against Mr. Beeoher was given 10
him by reporter OF TIE TRIBUNE about 49 O'Clock yes
tcrday afternoon He appeared be somewhat aston
shed the and at first questioned Inc TACT mat
the papers had been served. When assured that the
complaint had been served he remarked In an peuous
manner W5 MoutOn will be beaten out OF his boots!
Gen Tracy said that Mr. Beechers willingness to cnera
,oAO lroSequi to the Indictment against Mr. Mouton
would not affect this case He interested 10 learn all
known regard to the suit and when told that
it had stated that to be retained as counsel
for Bcecher he said that the author of the statement
"probably know what he talking about"
THE COMPLAINT
Following Is tho complaint Of MT Moulton which was
served ON Mr. Beecher Monday evening:
Neo York Supreme CONrt.-Fraucis ID. Mout0n against
Henry Ward BoeOhcr. Complaining of defendant paintlh
alleges
That with malicious intent to niure plaintiff IN ms
good name and credit 10 bring MIN INTO public ilsgi"ce
to eau him 10 impr sOned and TO subject hun 10
trouble and expense, defendant qua on or before e 90
day of October 1874 voluntarily go before the Grand
jury Court OF Session, Of the County OF Kings IN
the city of BooMyn for tue purpose OF procuring an n
dIctinent against plaintiff as hereintOlore stated
IL mat at the SAID court delehdant fompaiueP' Jl
ouoly and without any reasonable OF pIoo,Dle cStS'
whatsoever charged pan; TO t9 T KIM the
defendant certain criminal h6elswhich said cuifge 80
made by defendant wholly false ana untrue, as ne
then and since we'll knew. - .,
iii That defendant falsely and malicously and with
Grand Jury aforesaid to ma and present said
Court OF Sessions Indictment against pianr for sald
w That on tie said third day of October 1874. the
said indictment was transferred to tue Guy Count VI
BROOKLYN for prosecution and trial go
v That dcftu falsely aud malicously and without
fbS arrest Of pant upon the aforesaid ndicn, Mt to
answer charges therein made against nm as orc-
iooH and carried before Judge ssid city Court and to
he then compelled 10 give BOND TO appear lof
vi That def ndant falsely and maiously ana Win,
out ans reasonable probable cause procured plniH
to b. arianod before said City Court ana conpeed MN
70 plead To said indictment.
Vii That plaintiff pleaded not guilty, and was then;
and ever since ready and anxious 10 stand il
IN said indictment, but the District Attorney v anu IOi
the County OF Kings, after consulting VIII dtlcndah
and in compliance his wish but against the VIII and
protest of plaintiff, did about the 22d day 81 DC
tOber 49, the said City Court OF BioOkYn lna
mile DjOsfqn entered to SAID indictment ano he
prosecution thereof against the paiptlh ana the s'in
City Court did then and there grant SAID motlo anu ~
was thereupOn adjudged and ordered by the sad Court
that aoue proe4 should be allowed and entered ~ 10
said Indictment against plaintiff and the same was al
Il, we'd ana entered of record In sand court.
VIII That the said indictment, complaint ana prose
eution and each of them, Is wholly endod ana de'eI-
mined in faVOI of plalhtlf. -,
TX. That y reason tine premises paintih has neen
injured in his good name ihd wounded III ls eelhss
and involved IN expense anC sODeccu 10 ihsui anu oP
IrcssiUn--tO ms damage 100000. 40 ooo ,
wherefore pianuh demdni II judgment TOT anu
costs. ROGER A. fkn oH, tihtiu ~ Xii,,i,,,
C,En and COnity OF Nec YORK.. IS: Francis d. MOuton
he duly sworn says Le is plaintiff IN tins action; at
h MS red the complaint and mat II Is rue OF MS
own knowledge, except as - matters tIe hiattu on
information and belief. and as to them he believes 10
ThaTI,o -.
WILLIAM i. PARKER,
Notary Public CITY and County of Ne"-f"rk'