The New York herald., 1876-09-22
A Dislike to Try the Case in This
City or Brooklyn.
Argument on Motion to Change
the Place of Trial.
Shearman's Structures on the
Mutual Friend.

consequence. The important question now agitang
the courts this matter is the most proper place fof
the trial OF the Tor damages brought by Mr. Moul
ton against Mr. Beccher, the facts OF which have
already been too fully and frequently outlined in the
papers to require going into more extended oetais
Mr. Moulon is to have the case tried In this
city it being claimed on his behalf that fair
partial trial be had here, whereas Mr. Bcecher
and his legal advisors insist the trial taking place
in FRANKLIN county or some county equally remote
from the scenes giving birth tho groat scandal
motion to remove the from Now York county to
some of the rural counties Of tho Statea preference
being given TO the northern countcs-was argued at
great length yesterday before Judge Wcstbrook In
Supreme Court, Chambers The crowd in attendance
was not very large, which would seem to indicate
. diminished interest in tho issues involved in this
renewed litigation but such It the un1ag
ging attention given 10 the reading oil tho afi-
davs Tor and against the motion and TO the prolonged
remarks OF counsel that followed Mr.. Moulton
present. looking placid and calmly at the
great trial in the City of Churches noticeable fea-
ture the Absence however OF the great legal lumi
naries that gave such brilliant character the Brook
lyn trial. ex-Judge Henry Fullerton, brother of
Judge William Fullerton, the great cross-sxamlner
being the sole representative OF Mr.. Moulton, while
Mr. Beecher had his representative his unceasng
and unnlncning advocate, Thomas G. Shearman, as
sisted by Messrs. vanderpoe and John L. Hill
AFFIDAvITs ON 10Th sIDxs.
The proceedings opened by the reading of numerous
anldavits on both sides, Mr. Shcarman first reading
those in support OF tho motion The first affidavit
read was by Mr.. Beecher, setting forth the mpossi-
bility of getting twelve impartial jurors Brooklyn
the Titon Beecher trial, that rather than havo
NO trial deIendans counsel accepted Jurors who pro-
iesscd bias against him; also the extent which
that, depouent believes, jurors could not be
found IN Tho First Second districts who have not
formed expressed opinion the issues; whereas
in the northern counties the less extensively
published, read and discussed. Now next followed the
aldavts OF others 10 the effect and addition,
setting forth that Titon and Moul,on had circulated
hundreds OF thousands Of copies OF newspapers among
the thern counties containing documents In which
they accuse Mr. Beecher OF adultery and perjury. An
davts read from Alfred T. Reynolds, Daniel
Wood, likewise Thomas +. Ellis, Charles 8. Price and
other gentlemen as to the impossbility Of getting
fair jury in New ork or Kings countless and from the
Prosucnt OF the First National Bank Of Tarrytown
George W. Davis relates to westchcster
residents OF northern counties that the resi-
dents OF those coantics are less committed to an
opinion and fair jury might be had there In conclu
read the aLdavits of seventeen residents of
this city stating that they have been unable 10 find
any oLe here who has not formed an opinion IN the
case.
Judge Fullerton led OF with reading affidavit OF
Mr. Mouon settlng forth that his moderate means
sunk a business which requires his presence ia New
York; that the is trae OF the thirty Witnesses
tat some OF Them state that they will not attend
OF New York or Brooklyn; that the trial vii! occupy
months, and tho expenses OF removal OF Wit
nesses and counsel would be beyond his means,
whereas defendants counsel paid $50, 900 Of his
penscs the last trial and can DO much again. and
II the motion were granted plaintiff must allow no
to by default Next In order read Aida
oil hitecnr sidenis Of this CITY That they have
formed or expressed an opinion about the issues Of
this case, and from wcntyseven residents tnat fair
trial con be had IN tins cIty.
MR.. sIEARMAS3 ARGUMENT
The rcadins Of the ahdavil concluded, Mr. Sherman
entered upon his argument IN support Of the motion
he began by critlcsing the conduct OF Mr. Moulton
Iubsequcn TO the Institution oi the present SUIT lie
characterized this conduct as an outrageous attempt 10
pre- udice pubic OPINION against Mr.. Becchcr and in
his own iavor These lying statements, he SAID, had
been scattered broadcast, and he unable 10 ktig
matze 1t otherwise than as most vlianous proceed
ing, and IN using tins language he icit that he
speaking within moderate bounds. He next drew
contrast between the persons making afdavs for Mr.
Noulton and those making afidavis for Nr. Becchcr
The former he SAID mainly keepers OF sample
rooms OF marked obscurity except in their special
trcis. and having but very httic knowledge oil tho
matters sworn to- On the contrary, the persons
whose allidavits he had read support OF The
we're all men OF well Known Character and rcpule, all
ol whom had resided IN the city OF Brooklyn and this
city Tor the last twenty years Ho did not deny that
Mr. Moulton could get his henchmen here. as in
The case Of tho juror IN the Scanne trial,
whose hands ho shook every morning; they
had had quite enough OF Mr. Moulton's croncs in the
Jury box. He compared Mr. Moulton 10 Colonel Sci
lers, and sad that the Mr.. Moulton would desire
for a jury would be such men as Falstan met
Hounslow Heath. One oi the atlantis Tor Mr.. Moulton
thumbs down, but that all they knew about this
simon Another was Mr.. Parker, tho same name
lhc managing clerk oil General Pryor and between
whose handwrllines there slrong family resem-
oance. Another coal merchant which seems
lather coal merchant He had been unable to find
tho names OF one OF them on the jury list OF this
Court AS far as these persons andavs showed any
thing the present might be promissory Doie,
such notes Mouton wrung out OF Beechcr and upon
the mon.y realized from which T'lton thrved.
Following these comments upon the Moulton
always be ra scd against aitidavits. Aidavils he
Insisted we're always SUSPICIOUS things He felt conf.
dent, however, tuat the court would not be carried
away BY ans sucn cloud OF Witnesses he cited vari-
GUS authorities, which point OF his argument, how
ever, he abbreviated upon the Judge reminding him
that its discussion unnecessary. Having next
stated that New York and Brooklyn arc closely In.
tertwned lorm reality one CITY, and evidently
prepared himself 10 ampIiiy this proposition in
definite length, Judge Wcibrook again brought him ~
ahalt by asking HIM to enghten ihc Court upon tho
question how the granting denying the motion would
convenience or inconvenience Witnesses This qucs-
ton Mr.. Shearman insisted should be thrown 10 the
winds, the only question being that OF obtaining an I'M
partial jury and a fair trial. He claimed that II
utterly Impossible TO obtain either in New York or the
adjacent counties, the poisoning OF tho pub
Mr.. Mouton. He took up the matter
Of expcusc, urging that lawyers were cheaper
In the country. Mr. Mouion, he said, moved by
spect Tor the SEX had imported afascinating widow
IRON Massachusetts to act as counsel for an. Who
could such torrents oil such female coQucnee p
the cloquencc, too, OF bashtul matden but OF
who understands thoroughly what she is about lie
told how an Athcnian lady On trial once captvned all
hearts and her by lifting her veil and
ing her beauty He expected the same thing would DO
done with this fascinating widow. He iurtner urged
Tor the motion that whle the nigh: tried
within three weeks the country II would require
three months the city, He wound up his remarks
by hit that MAS kcenly appreciated by all present
Hc said that OF the Witnesses in attending the
trial, would have 10 sleeping cars convenient
mode OF travel which, in view Of recent developments,
some would doubtless hesitate to adopt
REPLY OF JUDGE FULLERTON.
Judge Fullerton, replying stated that the present
Ias his hrst connection with case involving discus
sion oil what Is known the Beecher scandal He
would however, not attack any one, apply harsh
epithets or make efforts at w.t. but briefly submit
what he considered TO be the legal grounds Tor resist
ing the present motion. Many statements had been
made by opposing counsel not contained in afdavis
10 which, OF course, he would make answer HIS
chef regret was that General Pryor had unable
through Ill health TO attend and make the answering
argument such motion as the present ono WAS sci.