New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-09-26
THE MOULTOY-BEECHER SUIT,

FTrRTpEa AFFIDAvITs CONCERNING ALLEGED At
TEMPS TO INFLUENCE PUBLIC OPINION.
The motion in the suit of Francis ID. Moul-
ton against Mr. Beeeher to- remove the case nom tis
city 10 one Of the counties Of the northern district ar
aued last week came up somewhat Unexpectedly ycster
dav before Judge Westlrook in Supreme Court, Cham
hers on a motion 20 submit further affidavit By Mr.
Moulton in relation to ono point This Few affidavit adj
mts that prior the proceeding brought against M
Monton by Mr. Beocher he did give certain statements
as to the charges against Mr. Beechor for puohcatiVn
but he declares that these not intended to affect
public opinion as TO the merits OF this controversy After
Ire ,oo sooo,. aEa lac VAS tOd thaJ hc
had cause OF action AGAINST Mr.. Bceeher he asserted
that he did rCmCnber that he had made any state
ment designed to Affect public opinion ana hence ne
denied having made after this suit was begun any com
1nunicaton whien coud have any influence on public
sentiment o. opinion,
Thomas g. ghear1nan on behalf of Mr. Beechcr, at
Arst opposed the reception OF thGadayt one which
being sworn to before Kings County notary, not quail
fed to act in NewYOrkcOuld not DO made the basis OF
an Indictment for PERJURY; but the court ntimating that
this would ouly result delay, he withdrew the Obec
ton and presented his sworn affidavit in answer
In this be gives carefully the dates. The summons and
complaint in this suit served Dee 81 1870 and at
once handed to him He did not communicate their con-
tents to any one, yet ON the next morning they were
published. On Dec 80 account If an interview with
AIR Mo,,lton was published, in which the strongest
eY hhn NJ shearmn says be believes this report OF
tie language Nh. MUultOn TO be.true and that Wheh
he used 10 lac meant II should be published.
In February 1874 when the Plymouth Churcn Couh-
Gil was sitting Mr. Monitor sent letter to It's Moderator
making charges against Mr. Beecher. Mr.. Shearnan
saws informed that AIR MOutOn sent copies OF lhls
letter TO tue papers before the Moderator recciyed
In ADril 1875. lctcr addressed TO Mr. BecebeI over
the signature of Francis d. MOulton, which MI olc2l
man charges was signed by Mr. MOuiton and gwen by
lIa 10 tue press appeared in several papers Al that
tine Mr BeCcher out Of the State and, MI smear
man Ia informed never this letter, which Is iuil OF
charges agaus sir. BeeCher Again, as late as sept l.
1876 still another interview published III which MI
MoultOH applied opDr0brious language 70 Mr. Beeehei
aud CHARGED specially that Mr. BcechCr desired 10 avoid
a tral, TO which allegations Mr. Shcarmau says: All OF
them false TO my personal knowledge the truth being
thI the plaintiff 10 have excuse Tor dlseon
tnuance ard mat defendant mas refused TO consent
thereto" 90,
Mr. shearmap closes as follows: $50 far as have any
knOwledge, Information belief, tho charge mat the
defendaut OF any his behalf, has attempted 70
influence public sentiment In the Fourth Judicial DIS
tric g entirely false. The defendant has never visited
that district since the ideG of tial therein was su
ested TO hIn the plaintiffs principal Witness
Slr Theodore TOn, has visited Franklin county since
this motion made under circumstances indicating q
successful his part for popularity and favor
Judge WestbrCOk took tncse papers 10 Dc considered
with the others tho motion.