OCR Text |
Show the iti:i:un:u trial. New York, 1". Eeecher was in court to-ihu There w;is a large ac-eefsioti ac-eefsioti of women. As soon as the court openei! Kiillerlon calleil attention atten-tion to an editorial reference lo the trial in (he Trihunc this morning, 1 which opens thus: "Ad usual the IJ.echer trial was enlivened yesterday Ly tome chcic exhihitioiid "of legal lilaektzuardism. Here is one;" and then follows a brief pasfA-o h:tweon 1'ullerton and Ovinjzton. Judge Xeilson said he appreciated the remarks of FuUerton, and the language used in tlio edimrinl called for im apology. Fur hid part lie never attended a trial where no much courtesy was exchanged by counsel and witnesses. Calvin J. Mills of Biiflalo, was the first witness. Ho testified that lie was engaged on the New York Standard Stand-ard in 1672. In that year ho saw the publication of what was called the Wood Liu II scandal, about election tin , in tho Wwdhutl .(' Chjlin H't cklij. He was a.-ked if ho saw proof slips of this article before it was published. pub-lished. Fullerton objected and an argument argu-ment ensued. Evarts contended that the matter had been touched upon by the other side. Court ruled that the answer would he taken. Beach demurred to this, and reopened re-opened the argument, stating that he had shown through Andrews that the article was prepared by him ii short time before it was put in type. He contended that the admission of this evidence would reopen the issues of , the case. The court said tbo question could be answered "Yes or no," but Evarls ( said it had caused so much discussion j he would withdraw the question. ( Witness left. j Bo wen was recalled for further j cross-examination, and testified that he had no recollection of an interview with Eggleston on the 2Sth of Decern- . her, 1S70. Recollect after tho tripar- 1 tite agreement transaction of April c 'Id of goin' away with Storrs. 1 ClaHin was not with us, but did not ! s.iy anything about desiring the return v. ui' the Woodstock letter. He did not -say to me it would not bo given me unless a certain arlicle was published t in the Independent. Cross examination by FuUerton : Do not remember when I left Free-land's Free-land's house on the 2Gth of Decern- u ber, 1S70. Fcft there bufore C o'clock j, and arrived there about 4 or o o'clock: n did not hear of the Woodstock letter ), until two days after the signing of the n tripartite agreement. One of tho (l arbitrators, Storrs, came to my office and said I have news for you am t goins to get the Woodstock letter. I (I said I would be glad lo get it. He J; either gave it to me then or went and a got it and then gave it to me. It was j, an unconditional surrender of it. Egglcolon recalled and testified. I u am now a clergyman and pastor of a u church. In December, 1S70, I bad business relations with Bowen 0 as literary editor of the hvkpend- j tut. On the 2-f'h of December, 1S70, s I was twice at Bowen's. Think I j, went by appointment; went the third u time, but Bowen was engaged. On ft one occasion he was putting on his boots. Think Bowen said he had a letter from Tilton to Beeeher, tap- J ping his pocket. Tiiiuk I called at Bowen's aftcrwaiils. He was out, j and I waited on him. Remember . Bowen saying that Beecher stated that Tilton was the worst man in the world, and Mrs. Tilton a saint, going to heaven. He also said I think that Beecher told him horrible things of Tilton; also said that an adopted 0 .daughter of Tilton had tuit i.im that ft he (Tilton) had carried her in, his arms from her bed. & Cross-examined by FuUerton. I n-i-cased to be cmplnyed by Bowen in July, 1671; never bad any personal difficulties with Bowni, nor do I think we had any misunderstanding. May have had ditlerenees of opinion. Received my salary up to the time I left Bowen. Ho did not complain that I took away a literary work j which belonged to him. AYard, one of u the editors of the paper, called on me J?( for a story I had written; but I would ci not give it to him'because it was mine. 1 1 wrote part nf the story while I was on j, the Independent. One of tho terms of It my refusal was that I sold the story immediately after I left Bowen'a em- a ploy. I do not know that this raised any feeling between Bowen and my- q self. I int1 nded lo publish the story S in the Independent aa work for my salary. Witness was shown a letter o dated January 3d, 1871, which he ''( identified as his writing. FuUerton g1 read a portion of tho letter which U staled that he (Eggleston) was pre-paring pre-paring a story for the Independent, c, Rev. Dr. Ward called on me about K this story and claimed that he had a J, right to tho story. I had then sold V the siory tor $1U0. I am poitor of d tho Christian Endeavor church. This clitirch belongs to no particular de- nomination, but is running on its K own hook. To Shearman : 1 received U no special pay from Bowen for this story. Li I Horace B. CU'din recalled. Hcsaid K that he was or.e of the arbitrators be- l tween Bowen and Tilton. Never saw ,l the letter of subniis:ion; was not in- , lorn ltd April 0 I, 1672, of its exist- x ence, and it was not read to me. Never remember Bowen asking that what they were to sub-mit sub-mit should be put in writ- y ing. No writtt n submission o of any kind was drawn by Tilton, Moultoa or Bowen in my presence s that night. We all left together. Bowen said, ''Ucntlemcn, you must y get the Woodstock letter." Do nut i: think ho addressed any particular person, but spoke to all. Witness was not cioss-examineJ. 0 torrs recalled. He testified that he- $ was present at the arbitration of April x ord, 1S7H. He was siiown the written submission. Never saw this paper at 0 tho time of the arL'itration. Bowen A did not suggest that what they bad to submit should bo put in writing. -Went there with Bowen and found Tilton and Muiiltou. Took ll e Woodstock Wood-stock letter to Bowen. Cross-examineel by Beich: Cannot remember all that occurred in the presence of the arbitrators and the conversations that took place. If Mo.illon drew up that paper it was unknown to him. Have no recollection recollec-tion nf any paper being drawn up by Mouiton or Bowen belore the award w.is t:iveu; but there was some writing writ-ing itKeiwarJs. Wili swear that there -1 was no talk about the writing of a subuiisiien in mv hear::;.;. tno, W. 1'hl'er, who ov.v..d Use p house wh?re Motiiiou iivtd in ll, testii'n d to seeing a portrait Beeehe-r hai:i;ing in the parlor in 171. Cnx-s examined: "as certain it ' was Beectior's portrait, not Tiitou's. 5.w it last in Fubruary. 171. The court look a nvu-J. Evan- re- markid to Beach that they would l. pjubably cofielude Hie teeiimony thi alternuon. j |