New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1875-03-31
A QUESTION OF FACT DISCUSSED.

QUESTION OF EACI IISC ScED.
0. Who was present at that conversation
A. Nobody but Mr.. Moulton and my brother and myself
O. State whether not ia that conversation he gave
ANY expressions of feeling against Mr. BeecLer
Mr.. FullertOn-I object 10 that.
Mr. Tracy-what is the OtJectonl
Mr. Fulerton-I don't know there is any foundation
torit
Mr. Tracy-Oh. yes; examined on that subject
Mr. Fulerton-well point it out
Mr. Tracy-At least that is my memory.
Judge Neison-I think the conversation was inquired
Into both when Nj. stOrrs there and when they
asked Nj Mouon if he didn't say he would drive MI
Beeeher out of Brooklyn, and The like of that
Mr. Tracy-Yes. that it, You viii find 1t ON page
277-that conversation inquired into.
Judge NeilsOu-NOw you want u shape your inquiry
with express reference what vas asked Nr hou.on
O. Ia tnas oon-~,.-eson aid MI Mouiton say that
"Mr Beecher IS liar and hbertine anil damn him.
If personal violence would do any good, would shoot
him Down" or something to that ef3ctf
Mr. Fullerton-OOe moment-no objection.
A could state it better b. stating what was said
Mr. Fullerton-No; the question is whether he said
that.
The wltness-He only used, I remember, one of
those words; he used other words. but ony-he said
he was a liar and then went on and used other words
hut not exactly the words he asked me.
O. Well in substance those worlsf
Mr. Fuerton-That won't do
Mr.. Tracy-Oh ye4.
Mr. Fuerton-Oh no.
Mr. Tracy-I submit that that is the rule substance;
that has been ruling often enforced.
Mr. Beach-That was not the form that is the OBJ
lection.
Judge Neison-You viii first ask him leading ques-
ton with reference the exact inquiry made in re-
speet 10 Mr.. Mouton.
Mr. Tracy-If the objection was as the form of my
question
Mr.. Fullerton-The objection is not to the form
Mr.. Tracy-what did Moulton say in substance about
hr. Beechers being liar and libertine
Mr.. FullerioD-ThIti is objected to.
Judge NeilsOn--Well the suggestion made about the
form OF the question is thisyou did not understand it
think you first ought ark in the very words put 10
Mr.. MoultoD, did he state and So" aud you
liberty then TO follow IL up ~ asking him he stated
In substance.
MI Tracy take your HonOr's suggestion.
Judge NeilsoH-Tdat last may not be necessary; the
witness may remember it without.
MI Tracy-Yes, Sir. 10 the witness.l I ask you
now II, in that conversation, Mr.. Moulton said "Mr
Beeeher is liar and a libertineF'
The Wtness-Well, am to state what he did sayi
Hr Tracy-No; yOa to that question
whether A. He said that in substance. Sir.
@. WHAT A. BE said that ia substance
Mr.. Beach-Tnat object to; it not put TO Mr..
Noulton in that form.
Mr. Tracy submit that read from the book and do
you mean that did not read the whole question:
read the whole custom; said such question was
put 10 Mr.. Moulton.
Mr. Tracy--Why, the question is this: ibid you say
70 him within a month tbereabouts in your house
'Nr. Beecher is liar and lbertinei T."
Judge Neilson-Now, you are at liberty TO ask that
Mr.. Beach-EOw. object to the because the
witness replies in to the question calling for the
exact language, that Mr. Moulton said that in sub.
stance whereas Mr. Mouton INTERCEPTED as to
The substance.
Judge Neilson-whereas Mr.. Moulton was not inter
rogated as 10 the substance.
Mr.. Beach-No, sir; he was asked as 70 the very
words, the precise words.
Judge Nelson ITO Mr. Tracyl-wer you are con.
hhed 10 the words 20 on.
Mr. Beach, move 10 strike on, that Sir
Judge Neilson-sS far he says no used il 10 sub.
stance.
Mr. Beaeb-To strike out the whole answer
Nj fracy-I ask your Homer not TO decide that to-
sighf When we have put the very words we NAV
Devertheess ask tho witness whether tho party did not
say that IN substance and will support tba propoei
ton by authorities Ia the morning
MI Morns-Weil you ask for the very words and ths
witness answers that he said that In substance: that ia
the difference.
Mr.. Tracy-We may ask the witness notwithstanding
We have asked the original witness whom VIC are wek
ing to contradict Did not say thus and 80 give
may nevertheless ask the impeachng witness or the
eontIsdictng witness whether he did say that in
Substance.
Ar. Mossis-But that your question; your ques-
sn asks whether he said those precise words and the
witness answers THAI 10 said 1t IN substance that
she difference.
NJ Tracyi have put my question in pursuance Of the
sasfosten OF the Court and II tho witness gives mega
Ssve answer to that then I shall put the question
vAeshsf - "a not W that in substance.
>~des Aeaison-Wsp, that was my suggestion a.
Assessee " sxaaasosa spsht 70 No. and thipl you