The New York herald., 1876-09-26
THE COURTS.
Frank D. Moulton's Suit Against
Henry Ward Beecher.
Interesting Complications on the Motion fOr
Change of Venu.
Moulton Defensive and Beecher's
Lawyer Aggressive.
SIMPLE EXHIBIT OF OPPOSING AFFIDAVITS

c
Francis D. Noulton's suit against Henry Ward
Bechor one OF the addendums OF the late scandal trial.
promises give to some rather interesting pre-
iiminsry complications /, was generally supposed
that when, after the recent argument before Judge
westbYook, in Supreme Court, Chambers, to change
she place Of trial from county of the north
ern counties tho State the papers were passed up
10 the Judge that would be the OF the preliminary
proceedings pending tho decision upon tho motion It
appears however. that Mr Moulton altogether
satisfied with the charges made by Mr.. shcarman,
counsel for Mr. Bcecher, that no had been busy TO-
mcnng public opinion his advantage In anticipation
OF the coming trial Accordingly, shortly after Judge
wcstbrook took his seat the bench yesterday morn
Ing In Supreme Court, Chambers, an affidavit was sub
uitced behalf OF Mr. Mouton In answer TO such
charges The following Is tho andavi which has the
merit of brevity, beside telling the whole story
City aud County Of Ne,c York A-Francis d. Moul-
Ion, being duly sworn, dcposes and says fol-
iows:-It is alleged In tho aldavits used by
tho defendant the motion TO change
tho place OF trial herein from the county OF
New York 10 some other county that published or
caused to be published certain statements or commu-
ncatons in newspapers In the city OF New YORK The
Intention effect OF which was 10 influence mould
public sentiment or opinion on the question OF Nr.
Beechcrs guilt or innocence OF the offence OF adultery.
In reply thereto alcge that the malicious prosecution
referred to in my complaint, and Tor which this action
Is brought TO recover damages, was commenced by Mr.
Bcecher by tho procurement OF nm indictment against
in the month OF October 1875. admit that prior
TO time did publish or cause TO be published cer
tain statements respecting the charge OF adultery
against Mr. Beccher, but deny that tho object Of
such publication was to affect or influence public
opinion regard to the merits of this action. l
have no recollection of publishing or causing to be
published after said indictment nolle pressed and
after supposed and was advised that had cause OF
action against Mr. Beccher for malicious prosecution,
any statement or communication which could have
any effect, designed by me to influence or
mould public sentiment on the question OF Mr. Beech
ers guilt Innocence of adultery and have no re-
collection Of causing to be published any such state
men; commun nication since the commencement Of
,ns action; and hence deny that have AT any time
since the discontinuancc OF said Indictment the
commencement of this action published any state
mcnt or communication In any newspaper which
could have any influence on public sentiment or opn-
ION tho above question. And further deponent
saith not FRANCIS d. MoULTON.
sworn 10 before me his 23d day OF September 1876
WILLIAM =. PARKER, Notary Public n. Y. Co.
In tho absence OF General Pryor. senior counsel for
Mr. Moulton, the above affidavit was presented by his
son acting his representative, who at the time
moved that IL be made part OF the opposing papers
upon the motion for change of venue.
Mr.. shearman said In opposition that tho sfndavit
was made before notary of Kings county, and con-
sequcntly, Moulton could not be held for perjury
that affidavit 1t not the FIRST time such n trick
was played on them. He would movc tho course of
the day that Mr. Moulton be summoned to court and
sworn before His Honor. After this sally Mr.. Shear
man occupied o enOrt time IN the examination OF vol
luminous law books, and anorward, seating HIM
self in front OF the Judges desk, busily engaged him
self in preparing affidavit in opposition to the
presented on benalf of Mr. Moulton. Tho following
was the affidavit thus prepared which, though lacking
the brevity OF Mr.. Moulton's, not less lacking in
public INTEREST,"
City and County of New York. ss-Thomas G.
ehearmnn, being duly sworn, says
!. This action WAS commenced by the service OF a
night, December 27,ls15
2 Both these papers instantly handed to me by
the defendant without reading them. did not furnish
any copy thereof TO the press nor allow any to
take copy or see them long enough to recoec their
contents until long after their publication as hereira
ter stated
g. Both the SAID papers were published In full In
the New York Sun and Times OF the next morning. two
daily papers published In the city OF New York. which
have constantly advocated the plaintiffs cause n his
controversy with The defendant sInce the summer Of
1875.
l. The New York Sun OF December 80, 1875, con-
Sansd an account OF an interview between Mr. Mouton
and a reporter for the Sun, in which Mr. Moulton
charged Mr. Beecher with 'perjury and false
lions, with having brought "perjured prosecution"
and used the following language concerning MIR.
He told me OF bis grief for his
adultery Mr. Beechcr = through
perjury procured an indictment against me.
lie Is dishonored man. He knew that per-
Jury was his only hope His false swearing
and adultery - Thus great criminal" and
pther language OF similar import believe this report
Of Mr. Mouton's language to be true, and also be-
levs that when he uttered this language he knew
that would and meant that 1t would be published in
the said newspaper the next day.
S. On February 26 1876, an ecclesiastical council
was in private session IN the city Of Brooklyn | am
informed and believe that In the afternoon that day
the plaintiff sent in to the moderator OF that council
letter received by the plaintiff, in which he said 81
I'm prepared to prove Henry Ward Beecher guilty OF
adultery and perjury am further informed and be-
leve that The pain furnished copies OF this letter
newspapers, published both in New York and Brook
lyn, before the said moderator received the original
and that person, except the plaintiff, permitted
copy OF such letter to be made know that copy OF
the said letter was published IN the New York papers
the next morning, and am almost certain shat 1t
published on the day OF its delivery before the council
opened lis doors IN Brooklyn newspaper which sym.
pathized with the plaintiff
ON April 2d, 1876, a letter addressed to the de-
fendant and signed with the OF tho plaintiff ap-
peared In several OF the New York morning papers
simultaneously have no doubt 1t was signed by the
plaintiff and furnished by him TO the press ! have
and Sun. both of which papers were then, and still
are. bitterly hostile to the defendant II would be i'm
their editors had not known that II came from the
plaintiff The defendant absent from the State for
several DAYS before and after this publication, and
am informed py him and believe that no such letter
by him. In this letter the plaintiff used
the following language concerning the defendant,
among other language Of like c1ec:-"Your unfnith-
fulness, false swearing and adultery; your
wickcdness; your crimes; proving
your guilt, you havo availcd yourself OF cvery
pedent 20 evadc impartial inquiry and sup
press the facts You procured By your own
perjury an indictment against me. Your
adultery and perjury. The issue is, did you
commit perjury or did ~" &c
T. On September !, 1876, the New York Sun pub
lshed report OF an interview between the plaintiff
ana one OF the reporters o! the Sun, which report
believe to be true. In II the plaintiff is reported
saying concerning the defendant and this action:-
''his main object is to avoid trial. He dare
not meet the issue before any impartial tribunal His
motion to change the place oftral retract sub
icruge, sskulk .. / know he doesp mean TO
try the case AZ all, unless he play the game with
loaded dice. Many other accusations OF a similar
turc against the defendant mado by the plaintiff
In this nterviw, and all OF them false to my per-
sonai knowledge the truth being that the plaintiff is
anxious to have for dsconti1uance and that
The defendant has refused to consent thereto have
no doubt that the interview aforesaid by
plaintiff with full knowledge that It to be pub
lished, and that he Intended 1t to be published.
6 All the publications herein mentioned werc
made during the pcndcDcy Of this action, and has
press the issues TO DO tried herein They
Ill tended directly to prejudice the defendants in
minds Of tho public throughout New York city and
Ihe entire State lying south Of the Central Railroad