New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1876-09-22
THE COUNTS.
THE MOULTON-BEEGHER SUIT.
gUMENr on THE MOTION TO REMOVE IHE TRIAL

LIE NEUTRALITY-SUSPICIOUS. 'pN.'A'
ARGUMENT on THE MOTION TO REMOVE THE TRIAL
TO FRANKLIN COUNTY.
Tn the suit of Francis d. MOulton against
Henry Ward Beecher for malicious prosecution, Judge
WestbrooE in Supreme Court Chambers heard Yesterday
motion 10 remove TIE for trial to Franklin County
or one OF the counties OF the northern judicial blsc'
of this state, which is known as the fOar'h Disr%,'
Thomas c. shcarman, for the defendant presented "G
davis IN substance Of which has been already pub
1ed setting rth the substantial identity OF the issues
in this ease with those in the TtOnBeeebcr case the
trial Of which resulted IN disagreement after great
trouble il getting jury az all; the opinions OF mum
her of citizens that those isues had 80 reaehed inc
minds of AL jurors the soathen counties OF tue state
that no impartial jury cOnld be obtained; that Mr.
Moulton and Mr.. Til,on had pobhshed SiatemehIS'
which had been scattered broadcast through the conn
fry and which tended to poison the public miud one OF
these devised by b. +. Buter, havngi been published
after this suit had been begun. .r
Fy,Judee s. w. Fullerton, for tie plaintiff presented
in opposition the adars Of 10 persons who claimed TO
he qualified Jurors OF this county headed by Edward B.
simon thar they have not formed opinions IN the casa
:, 90 business mon Including John Foley, that they
beljeve fury can be obtained to try tbs case; also
affdayits Of seven other HeTzons' headed ~ ). 70,
Kent that tbcy have cOuYCrstd with many peUlC bs 20
the ease and believe jury can be obtained without GI
6ouIty. An affidavit OF Mr honlton tbt paih,h ".s
crate fortune, who had Just entered on ~ eHerpss
in whica sll bis available means wefs ShS &C., sn@ ~
the case TO northern court would cause h decreased
and utoeYabe expense, aud his witnesses NOu NOT 90
there except comynlson While some oe5 'a 'Ae o''e
wIuld not attend there ~ Ril. . A
Mr. ElIearblan urged uIgt most OF the detcudats ah
fayits W. re not denied aud 10 not d'nsi tai 3lhS
statereuts relating before the court Ad been
Circulated I'M the Southern part of hew-fGlk, Eh0 ta1
only toe Fourth Judicial III tIict had escaped the con
tannaflon Of those statemcuts THIS alone, ne c.1'
Was ground Tor Transferring tie ease 20 tiat strct
Bnt ssie trO that the slhdgyIs each slde pessiied
a broad difference. on Mr.. BeecherS part SN.y Nun
was we'll Known and his address was aHBeT aae "a aoA
ii H. ON tue part of Mr. AoultOb every nan Was oar
keeper OK wine merchant, unknown, except one rue
andays presented by TIE plaintiff showed DO hnRleGs
OF ina case. Mr. SHearnAn added uEit be uu
nor know that New-YUrk city counsel must Ds
taken 10 tho northern county. Ile pi1intm haa
aJrY.stly awaited himself OF Other council, Wio@
frpfn the modern Athens, and "a Ia AtheuiAh
times a grass widow her suit by GropplhS
her val so this modeTn Phryne could no doubt WIN
verdict for Monitor by rcnding Oh ms van ld ss"W
ing ms un adorned beauty. VIA IN adNoc"te ilAc b. =
Butler. plaintiff surely needed no coaHssl .Eim VIZ
city As 10 the witnesses, the county courts avoided pfO
xlty and the main Inconvenience was iiiI h0alt hiSh
have Ia raVei la q sleeping ear A. TO 81 geil te n''
OF the last trial had been 10 parties ana cOhei fJ
COO the eounsls time beng worth fHr more tHah tney
hod thong hi right g. cnlrge tneir clients.
= II Fullerton replied Tor 1he pia,lth anA n j. Nah-
dcrpOGl made an argumcut Tor the ohieh'IAN' Su"h'
Westbc0OK reserved MS DECISION