The Superior times. [volume] (Superior, Wis.) 1870-1912, 1876-08-25
MOULTON VS.. REFCHFP

From the Brooklyn Eagle August H.
When the Tilton-Beecher case closed
III a disagreement of the Jury, the
wearled world hoped the iudicial
| treatment of the case had ended FOR.
ever. The immediate and continued
lactlYlty OF the plaintiff and the de.
fiendaht, III the ordinary pursuits of
their professions, encouraged the hone.
Neither OF them has since taken anv
recourse to the law to disturb the no
sltlon III which the dispute between
them was left. That fact added to the
| evident suspension, or close, of eccle-
slastlcal attention to the matter appar-
entity justified the belief that the pub
lie would be treated to no more of the
scandal at ala contamination in the
| interest Of decency and patience most
devoutly to be wished.
from what appears to-day, however.
VIII be seen that the fall outlook on
our supreme court proceedings argues
sun another long, weary and UnSavory
trial OF the issue in this scandal, this
time between Mr.. Moulton as plaintiff,
and Mr.. Beecher as defendant. in a
suit for malicious prosecution with ex-
III WAS
hoped, one may say almost universally,
that Issue would be avoided in this
trial. Issue, however, has been
joined to-day, and the trial has thus
been initiated. How or where to get
a jury is for the lawyers, and the pub
lie would willingly aid neither set of
them in the work That. however. is
an incident to the approaching trial.
and 1t is on the trial as whole that
the public would tack prohibition, if
the public could.
This phase Of the controversy is as
follows: On the testimony of Mr..
Beecher, and, we believe, Mrs. Tilton
and another lady who had before that
pursued Mr.. Moulton in the federal
court, the grand jury of this county
| indicted Mr.. TiltOn and Mr.. Moulton
for criminal Hbels on their estate
ments before the trial of the Tilton
and Beecher case. After that had
ended lncOnclusively, the district at
torney, with the assent of Mr.. Beecher
and against the dissent of Mr.. Moulton,
got leave from Judge Nelson to nolle
the indictments.
Mr.. IiltOn being far absent was not
consulted in the matter of the nOlle of
the Indictment against him, and has
since made no sign about it. Mr.. MOUl-
ton, however, sued Mr.. Beecher for
alleged malicious prosecution through
alleged perjury in his testimony before
the grand jury. To this suit Mr..
Beecher demmred that a nolle was
not such an ending of an Indictment as
allowed the indicted party the remedy
OF liberty Of suit for damages. JUS
tice Dykman sustained the demurrer.
Justices Barnard and Gilbert, in gen
eral term, oyerruled Justice Dykman.
By the law as it fits q situation thus
made out, Mr.. Beecher had either to
let the case go by default to sheriff S
jury and appeal from its finding to the
court of appeals, or reach that tribun-
al by standing trial. He elected to
stand trial, and SO joins issue to-day.
The matter in question is the truth
fulness of Nj. Beecher in denying to
the grand jury the charges made
against him and the words attributed
to him in Nh. Moulton's statement"
! Conversely the truth of Mr.. MoultOn S
statement is involved, and the affairs
about which the issue of yeracity is
| joined are the relations between Mr..
| Beecher and Mrs. TiltOn, and the state
ments of Mr. Beecher concerning the
other lady.
This is the case, of which the most
deplorable infliction on the public is
that it is to be tried at all. The testi-
mony will be less than by the inability
of Mrs. MoultOn to testify in suit in
which her husband is a party. 1t will
be more than before, by the testimony
relating to the other lady, and should
Mrs. Tilton take the stand, by the
alleged number of persons, exclusive
of Mrs. Moulton, declared to be able to
| contradict Mrs. Tilton'S statements by
contrary words of her own. Should
Mrs. Tilton not take the stand these
''new Witnesses could not.