The New York Herald Newspaper, May 7, 1875, Page 5

THE TROUBLOUS TRIAL Henry C. Bowen Disposed Of as a Witness. THE DAMAGE OF HIS EVIDENCE An Important Point Regarding tho Triple Covenant. WHAT BOWEN REFUSED TO SIGN, Woodley, the Negro Witness, Again Contradicted. No Agreement to Burn Up the * Scandal Papers. Mrs. Tilton Said To Be Prepar- ing a Statement. Mr. Bowen ascended the witness stand again gesterday morning. He used his handkerchief frequently on his eyes, as If aMicted, like so many more of the brethren, with the lachrymose weak- ness of Plymouth church, In regard toa letter of Mr. Beecher's which was read, to the effect that In bis last interview with him be (Bowen) grew more and more {riendly to him, Bowed tes- tified that there was no cluange in his feelings to- ward Beecher from beginning to end of the in- terviow. When this point of the examination was reached —and it was Oaly balf-past eleven at the time—to the astonishment ot everybody, Mr. Frul- lerton announced, “That's all.” A great deal more was loosed for. mountain in labor and the mouse being the mighty offspring of the parturition, Bowen, for months, has given the public tne notion that be bas the key of tne secret, that he had sufficient materiai in his possession to destroy either side. bis production on the witness stand. The truth was sadiy wanted, and Bowenalone was the man who could ‘urnish this rare and desirable luxury. Bowen by bis oracular utterances heightened THE POPULAR DELUSION that he carried around tn the gloomy recesses of his soul the terrible facts that lay at the bottom of the scandal. So, a'ter all, the potential Bowen leaves the stand without fulfilling anything like | the promises made on his behalf, It may be said in bis benalf that he came on asa rebuttal wit- ness, and oad no such freedom of statement asif he were in She line of direct examination on the main issue. Mr, Evarts read over Horace B, Clafiin’s evi- @ence, where he swears that the agreement reached by the arbitrators was that all the papers in the scandal should be burned and the $7,000 paid, Mr. Bowen distinctly genie ever having heard a word about the burning of papers. No stipulation of the kind was made, He said he wa: Still a member of Piymouth church, and itisknown | tat he and all his family took communion thero last Sunday. THE OROSS-EXAMINATION of Mr. Bowen was a aull piece of business. He — told as to how the contracts between Mr. Tilton id the Union and Independent were carried out; bow Mr, Tilton’s salary was paid and various mat- | ters in regard to the arbitrators, all of which have been related many times over, the difference being that Mr. Bowen contradicts Mr. Beecher and Beveral witnesses fur the defence in his version of the story. ONE IMPORTANT POINT ‘Was developed in the redirect examination— Bowen, when the original craft of the tripartite covenant was seat him, refused to sign it. Mr, Fullerton showed it to him and asked him to point out the words in the covenant he refased to abide by. Witness said they were crossed over in ink, and the words he desired to have substituted, fo as to conscientiously enable him to put his Mgnature to the document, were written in with pencil. Tue following are the words he crossed over:—I believe that these charges, im- Putations aud innaendoes are without founda- tion in fact, and | disavow them.” Tne Substituted words which subsequently went ln are, ‘I sincerely regret that these charges, imputations and innuendoes have been made, and L withdraw them.” Here wil! be found the chief food for reflection. Bowen clearly knew of the charges and w Unwilling to sign a document that disavowed the sianders heaped upon his pastor. It was always till yesterday a puzzle why Bowen did not sign the first drait of the tripartite agreement, The explanation is now at hand and so also is the explanation why Tilton refused to give nis signature to the same paper, At the period Tilton said he would sign it ten times over if Boweu signed it once, Bowen would not agree to its terms, and he kept the paper for a night to Gevise some method of giving nearly equal satis- faction to the most interested party to the trans- Bctlon—Beecher. In the morning the paper was returned, wito the emendation already given, and when ‘hat was incorporated he gave his signature and the rest followed suit, On the redirect Fullerton offered a question Which he said ne had inadvertently omitted on the direct examination, to the effect if at any time he (Bowen) stated to Mr. Beecher any charge that affected his moral character, An ar- gument followed and the Judge ruled it out, much to the disappointment of the plainuf and his coun- bel. The Jadge deemed the question too remote, and though Beach and Fullerton worked hard to get ts in His Honor was inflexible. ANALOGIES, Mr. Evarts asked Bowen minutely about the dif- ferent steps and processes in the affair of arbitra- tween him ana Tilto Some people surmised that the only purpose for so many inquiries was to satisfy Mr. Evarts as to the degree of logy between the Tilton-Bowen arbitration and that greater one at Geneva where the great counsel took so prominent a part. IN GOOD SPIRITS. Perhaps it is to be an era of good feeling before the trial ends. witn tand at recess Beecher siiook hands with Mm. In the Plymouth churen circles the fraternt- sation of the brethren was mnusaally cordi Th ton was ia uncommonly good humor at the end of the day's proceedings. He was ready to iaugh ana joke with anybody. His lawyers were jubi- lant, and the defendant's lawyers were not behind them in manifestations of joy at the great success of their side, And all the delight was so unal- fected, THR PROCEEDINGS. dudge Nelison took nis seat on the bench at eleven o'clock, and after considerable delay the examination o; Mr. Henry VU. Bowen was resumed, js it Tesponse to Mr. Fullerton he testified as Jollowa ;. q Keturning to the 26th of December, I desire to ask you how long prior to the meeting on the day aier Christmas did you see Mr. Beesner? A, The following Sxbowth; | saw bimon the ist of January at iis house; ic Was votiing more than a formal cali; | bad no special conversation with reierenee to Mr. iilton on that day; [ Mereiy Sta cd tuat nis relations with the paper had cea that was early in the evening, about ve or six o'clock; | announced If to Tilton on the Saturday morning previous, which Was the dist of Decembe. 1 visited Mr. Beecner the loliowing Mornitg, about nine o'clock; Mr. Beecher was not present; Ldia not reply to Mr, Beecuer’s letter of 2d Ol dauwary, 187i, Which Was produced yos- ant to call your attention to an expres: that ietter of Mr. Weechor im wien le ve 1 saw you lust Tuesday.” Did you see cher oo tie Tuesday reierred to? A, | have n@ Feculiecuion, Have you stated all you saia to Mr. Beeoner We that Conversanoat? A. Ali that Lrecolieet; he Mated that tierce \ad been stories in circulation im rejerence to the morals of Mr. Tiiton, whi It was the old story of the | ‘The press called loudly for | When Bowen descended trom the | NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, MAY 7, 1875,-TRIPLE SHEET. satd, I ought to kmow, but the particulars of which I don't recollect, Q. Did anyining more occur at that interview on Monday after New Year's Day? A, He asked me woetuer I Was ireudly to nim; L said our dil lerences were scttied, and be stated he was giad to hear tt, Q. Did he use the.words “Wil you stand by me asafrienu® A, Only as | staved tt to you. @ Did you promise to become more friendly to Lin Mr. Evarts objected, and after a lengthened ais- cussion the question was put as tollows :—~ indicanng fricndliaess toward Mr. Beecher more than you had expressed. A, I made the call with | imendly feelings; they continued during tue inter- | view and remaived when L lett, ME CROSS: EXAMINATION, By Mr, Evarca—Say.if (hat is the letter and the envelope you tooc to Mr, Beecher? A. 1 cannot swear positively; there are Marks upon it as hav- ing been opened und closed. 3. Have you any recollection whether Mr. Beecher ever opened it’ A, have not; | don't Know whether Mr, Beecher observed that it was an open letter; it had been in my possession two | Or three hours belore | gave it to Mr. Beecher; 1 gave it to Mr. Beecher at my nouse, Q. Had there been a conference at your house thatday? A, That morning; Mr. Tilton and Mr, Johnson hat called at my house desiring to see me; they suid tuey Would come on Tuesday moru- ing, and I said I would see them when they cam they came early in the jorenoon; it was vefo eleven; they remained apout two bout dt tople of conversation was that for which the ap- pointment was made; Johnson left at twelve o’elock and Mr, Tilton soon after, pernaps filteen minutes; the prolonged interview was between us three, Q. Did you write to Mr. Freeland that day? A. | Ldid; [have nota copy of that letter; I don’t r member at what hour of the vay 1 sent the letter; Treceived a verbal answer when the messenger returned; John E. Bowen, my son, was tue mes- senger. that sou went to see Mr, Beecher? A. Four or live o’clock in the aiternvon, Q. Did you see anybody at Deacon Freeland’s house besides Mr. Beecher? A, Ido dot recoliect seeing any one; Mr. Freeiaud may nave been there, but I don’t recollect, Q. Do you remember whether your interview with Mr. Beecher was by raslignt or hght of day ? | A. 1 don’t remember; the interview was In the | front parior; 1 don’t remember how many persous | lived in tue house; the lolding doors o: the parlor were Closed When] wen tn: tue room was empty when [ went there; 1 think tremained about half } an hour, < Q. Do you remember when you got to the house Whom you saw there waiting for you? A, ldo | not recollect, bor do Lremember having a conver- | sation witha gentieman on my return, nor do [ | remember conversing with a gentleman beiore L | Went to see Mr. Beecher. Q. When you received that letter of the 2d Janu- ary did you read it? A. 1 did, ana nave pre- served it. | Q. Wuen you read vbhat letter did it occur to you | that the note presented a different view of what had passed between youon the 26th from what had reaily occurred? A, lt did not make such an | unpression; I first | TOLD M& TILTON OF HIS REMOVAL | on Saturday. and afterward, by letter, on Mon- | day; don’t remember the precise terms t usec; at | the interview at my house | intimated to him it was my intention to dispense with ms services: L told him Iwas dissausfied with bim and would and we parted without verminate all relations, | any quaiification of (nat. | Q@ Did you have another interview with nim that week? A. L don’t recollect; my announce- ment on Monuay Was not tional, as | did not deter- | mine to remove him until the Saturday tollow- | ing; the announcement was made in the Union office; 1 have no recoliection of seeing him there again; later in tne aay I sent him @ formal no- tice— (letters produced and read)—one was from | the Jndependent and the other from the Union, Q. Did you receive any answer from Mr, ‘Tilton ? A. L think I did, put fain not positive; so far as I know | have no such paper, though [have an im- pression that L received some repiy. Q, Dia you think you were indebied to Mr. Til- | ton wen you wrote that letter, at the termina- | tion of tiidse coutracts ? | Mr. Fullerton objected on the ground that Mr. | Bowen was willing to pay. Judge Neilson said he would not allow the wit- | mess Lo testiiy wnat he thought on une subject, Q You were entirely solvent aj that time? A. | Thad been so. Q. Did you admit at any time that you were in- debted to Mr. tiitonon the termination of those eek A. 1 have no recoliection on tne sab- ject. Q. Did you at the time you terminated those contracts—dil you understand that you had a Justifying cause lor terminating themy | Exception taken, | _Q Did you admit yon were ready to satisfy his claims, tf any? A, 1 did, Q. Did you say to anybody that you did not owe Tilton anything? Mr. Fullerton—I object, Witness—I did not. Mr. Fullercon—l withdraw tho (Langhier.) The witness then stated that he owed about $2,000 and a week's salary un contract. | Q. Yo whom did you make the payment, if any? | A. To Mr. Moulton, who brougat written authority from Mr, Tilton, | The contract between the witness and Mr. Til- ton as contributor to tne Jndependent ana ma: ager of the Brooklyn Union were here produce: | -Q. Who snegested the arbitration? A. Mr. Claf- Mn or Mr. Storrs; I am not positive; in the course of the arrangements | saw PROOFS FOR THE GOLDEN AGE, but I do not recollect who showed them to me, Q. When did the naming o1 arbitrators first arise? A. ldon’t remember; 1 ea | would be ready to leave it to arbitrators; I fail to remem. ber the person 1 named, but I think it was Mr. Giasing I did not understand whom Mr. Tilton nawed, Q. How 1ong before the actual arbitration did you see the proposed text of the tripartite agree. Ment? A. Never bevore, Q Did youremember receiving the Woodstock lettery A. Yes: two or three Gays ater toe set- tlement with Mr. Tilton; the letter in some years Old; it is dated Woodstock, June, 1863; this letter was returned to me; I knew it was to be returned to me the way before; | never asked for its ree turn, nor dit [ expect it. Q. Who brought you the tripartite agreement ? At Mr. Cladin; it was left with me over niga d signed at my office the next day. Q. Can you fix the aay on which it was left with you? A. Icaunot and | do not remember whether the other signatures Were on it when it was left Wh me (paper banded to witness) ; tis 1s DOL the paper that was leit one day and signed the next; the paper signed by,me was not the one that was lef with me tae day before. objection. Mr. Tilton der the last Q. Who brought you the paver that you signed? | A. Mr. Clafin; tne papers were brought wo my office in New York. Q. How soon did you know, alter ‘igned it. that the others signed it? A. con't Know; bat I understood they all assented to it belore they signed it; Tudid not Keep @ copy of the paper that was signed; | have nv idea who was present at the arbitration; I went with Mr. storia, but [| could not say who was there—whether Mr. Tilton or Mr, Claflin or Mr, Moulton was i the room; tne arvitration \ook piace in Mr. Mouiton’s house, in the dining room on the parior fluor; [ ed the arbitrators What we were to submit and decined to submit anything unless in writing; MK, MOULTON fHEN TOOK UP A PEN, and we agreed to the document written out in pis handwriting; no witnesses were introduced; Mr. ‘Tilton presented Bis case briefly; he said the object Was to sectle amicably the amount which he claimed; I don’t recollect what the amount Was, Dut In SUbStance about $7,000; 1 don't recol- ject that be said anything else except as to tne amount he considerea due to him; I said to the arottrators that | would leave tue whole question for their settlement; Mr. Tilton and I were | together in an adjoming room before the arbitra- | tors had come to & conclusion; | cannot give ihe | words o| the award, but Lremember the amount. Mr. Evarts here read the testimony of Mr. H. B. Claflin to the effect that he made the award, and suggested that ail the papers relating to the scandal should be burned, and that Mr. Bowen should pay $7,000, and then asked the witness whether he tad heard Mr. Clafiin make the sug- gestion, ‘he witness replied ina positive manner | that he heard nm» part of it, | , @ Do you mean to say It Was a fabrication? A. | Ihave po recollection of it; I mean to say no such statement Was made to me. | | A. I mean to say it Would have been impossivle jor bim to make it to me without recoliecting it. Q. Was no such Statement madeto you? A. I have Bo recollection of It. Q. Have you any recollection of anything of the kind havtug beet said? A. Ihave i recoltoction | that nothing of the kind was said, Q. So far as you know, nothing occurred out of | Which such @ statement could be made? a. Nothing whatever. Q. Be so good as to state what you do remem- ber? A. | may qualify my last statement by « ing that there Was & Conversation in the room to making up friends, or something to that effect. Q. Might that remark of Mr. Ciaflia’s have been | made without you hearing it? A. It mignt, but tt | was not made belore tue arbitrators; it ‘is en- | trely new to me; the roomyin Which the arbitra. tors Saf Was about seventeen feet by sixteen, At this stage the Court took a recess, AFTER THE RECRSS, Before calling Bowen to the stand after recess | Stephen Pearl Andrews was asked by Mr. Faller- | ton, at the suggestion, no doubt, of the gentieman involved, what General Hammond did he mean in his statement of the day belore, as being in the habit of visiting Mrs. Woodsull, “General Ham. mond of St. Louis.’ Not Surgeon General Hammond * “No, sit.” Had not Andrews been stopped by the Judge he might have read the names of @ hundred persons who were ia the habit of viviting the Woodnuill, and who, under the altered character of the nouse of Wooduull, might feel just as sensitive as Surgeon General Hammond, who was mistakenly pat down among the list of visitors. The questions in the cross-cxamimation of | Bowen were evidentiy collated with care. There | have beem eager and experienced hands in the | | work, and many snares Were set to trip the feet | lo that interview did you say or Go anythiog | «. How soon after you got the return message | | 80; Lhave Q bo you mean to say you do not recollect it ? | he was not there, not a minute; of the Independent editor, but be was a wary tire, picking bis way carefully and chirping low ana sweet, John L. Longht, the last witness, one of Del- monico’s well kuown stewards in the Broad street restaurant, raised a laugi in the beginning by ying be was forty years 10 the great caterer’s employment, though no one would venture to swear that John’s entire are exceeded forty; but then these restaurant people have long ago dis- covered the elixir of Ile to keep tne bloom and spirit of youth bright and juicy like @ fresh tomato, Join swept away the negro Woodley’s testimony as to seeing Victoria Wooahull in company with Theodore Tilton up | airs in Delmonico’s down-town restaurant. He | showed that 1t was impossible they could be there — by describing tne character of the upper story, and that no ladies or gentiemen ever came there, The cross-examination of Mr, H. ©. Bowen was | about being resumed at @ quarter past two o'clock, when Mr. Fullerton said he bad a single question to put to Mr, Stephen Pearl Andrews, Mr Andrews, ‘who had been sitting uear Mr. Fullerton, stood up, | and the jollowing eee was put to him Q. What General Hammond was it whom you mentioned yesterday as peing present at Mrs, | Woodnula A. Geuveral Hawmoud of St. Louis, | o. Q. Not Surgeon General Himmond? A. No, sir. BOWEN’S CROSS EXAMINATION CONTINUED, Mr. Evarts—On puge 674, 1n the testimony of Mr. Charlies Storrs, he being asked:— “Q. Alter they came in what was done? A. Mr. Claflin made known to them the award, "Q. State what he said? A. He staied that the award was that the three parties, Mr. Bowen, Mr. ‘niton ana Mr. Beecher, were to sign a paper calied the ‘I'ripartite Agreement,‘ and that all the papers were to be burned that the three parties had that weie likely to make any trouble nere- | after, aud that Mr. Bowen was to pay Mr. Titcon | $7,000." Toe witness said, in reply to Mr, Evarts—My attention was called to tms testimony of Mr. Storrs, and I say the same as I said belore. Q. lt may have occurred informally, bus not as | anbounced with the award? A. No, sir, Q. Now, sir, Lwiilask your attention to what another of ine aroilrators, Mr. Freeland, said :— “Q Mr, Clatlin angounced ine award? A, He ds “Q, What did he say the award was? A. Well, in substance, he said rst that the papers were all to be burned relating to the scandal. “Q, Well? A, The next was—iet me see, 1 don’t | exactly remember. “Q. Mr. Beecher’s letter of apology? A. Yes, sir; 4 recollect that Air, Clafin—Mr. Claflin was the spokesman. “Q. Where was that said that that letcer of apology was to be burned? A. Right on the wpor. Py . In the presence of whom? A. All of them. “Q, What did Moulton and Tilton say in regard to burning the letter? A, Lunderstood that tney assented to it; Ldidn’t hear ary objection, not a word. Witness said—I state most positively that nothing of the kind was said in my presence;I have some recollection, since | left this morning, without having had conference with any person | about the tripartite agreement, which | would | like to state, (Alter some discussion between counsel on both sides, the subject was not gone into by the witness). Noting was said to me about the tripartite agree vent until after this other one; nothing was said to me about any pa- per, and bo paper was shown me until alter the arbitration; Isay thatasain. (fhe last part of the answer was stricken out at the request of Mr. Evarts.) Q. Now, sir, see if this statement of Mr. Storrs in another part of the testimony—see if you recall to your mind what happened tuen (reading) “Mr. Bowen said he wanted what 1s termed th ‘Wooastock letter,’ aud the aroitrators assented totnat? A. No allusion was made to that woat- | ever in my presence; 1 think Mr, Storrs is wnolly wrong about tiat. Q. Now. sir, 1 willread what Mr. Clafin s— “As to burping tue vapers Mr. Bowen said, I have no papers, but I would Mke the return of the Woodstock letter, which was agreed to.” answer 16 the same, Q Mr. Freeland says (quoting), “I remember Woodstock was mentioned and ‘about a letter I think; Mr. Bowen wanted to have that returned to him and not burned?” A. Ineituer asked forit nor was it mentioned that 1t suould be returned; I | gotitin the way that I mentioned this moraing; according to my recollection some of the editors of the Independent were in coniereuce with me on Saturday night, when I mage that engagement a reason jor making the appointment ol Monday with Mr, Johuson ond Mr. Tilton; I think Dr. Spear and Mr, Gtadden; I am not positive, Low- ever; perhaps one or two otners; I cannot re- member; L believe 1 have beture answered the question of Dr. Eggleston beiug at my house on the 26tn of Decemver; | have no recuilection of it, be may have been there; be frequently callea, @0 Appointment Was made with him on Saturday to see me again on M jay, but I don’t remember it; | have no recollection of it one way or the Other; my mewory is generally good; I think so; when { don’t rememoer a thing | do not feel au Q@ustrance that jt dia not take piace; ldo not go sO fur a8 that; 1 twink 1 bave answered the ques- uon whether Mr. Eggleston did not come to my | house on the alternoon of December 26, by up- | | pointment, and whether he did not ind Mr, Tilton ani Mr, Oliver Jonson there, dy stating that [| have no recollection; 1 have not said that it did not occur; I have no recoliection; I wii! not say id that | bave no recollection of Kggieston’s being there or going arate this doe not retresa me atall; 1 do not recollect Mr. Eg- gleston finding me putting on my boots prepara- , tory to going out: [ have no recollection of say- ing t© him “lf Mr, Tilton 1s as bad as we think he is, he tains exceedingly weil; (here was nothing to that effect that recollect; ldo not recollect asking Mr. Eggleston tuat alteravon to go uown and see a ceriain lady and to report to him tue resuit; it 1s not impossivie; it may have occurred; 1 do not rememver on tuat ovcusion nig og my pocket una saving I nad a letter from Mr. Tilton to Mr, eecher; 1 wil not that it did not happen; | bave no recollection gl had @ letter from Mr. Beecher, or any- fect that ge irom «lady t© wnom | had seus | him; there was nothing about it whatever; Ido | not remember sayiug to him then, or thut eveu- Ing, “1 have just been fo Mr. beecuer,” or ‘to see Mr. Beecuer.” Q. ‘ste is a good friend of mine, of yours; he is deiigpted chat Mr. Tuten 18 removed, and says he is Lhe Worst man in the world, and tuat Mra, Til- ton iva saint going to heaven beiore her time ?’? (Laugnter.) A. I have no rec nlection of the kind, Q. No part of it? A. No, sit; no part, Q. Do you say that it did mut? A. Ne ir; there Was a great deal said on the subject; Ido not know wWoetuer that was said or n0.; SUL Lt 1s not impossible. | «. Did you then say to him that Mr. Beecher had tolu you terrivie things about Mr, Tilton? A. Same answer. You don’t recollect? A. No . This does no: revive itin your Memory? A. My impressiun is Laid not; ] would not say post- tively; | believe Mr. Beecher Was at Mr. Free- jand’s when I went there, but I will not be posi- tves I (hiuk he was; Luave nota saMlsentiy ais- about it to say positively; [ ja we room when | got tuere, think he wai bus ne may have come in a moment aiier; the answer my messenger bioaght upon tos =matier was “Yes; I simpiy requested Mr. Freeland (to make au appolutment at a certain hour and let me know if iv coulu bot be fuilliled; me read tne note and said ‘Yes; that Wis the message my messenger vrought back— nothing detiniie; | was not sure of meeting him; lexpected it, nowev because | requested tim to make tae appotaiment aud let me KLOW; “Yes”? Was tae ouly appomtment that was made; I Wanted to know if the appointment coud ve Made; 1 Go not recoliect the precise hour in the afternvon; it May have been ivur or five o’ciock, or early in the evening; it might bave been as Jave as six o’clock or as early as four or live o’ciock; tne message [sent to Mr. Freeland was that four or five o'clock or any other hour would do, to suit bis convenience; the only answer [ got was “*Yes;” 1 seiectea tue nour myself and went at the time speciiied in the note; 1 went at a certain Hour, a8 1 suposed; Mr, Beecher was not sent for after 1 got there; he wus there; I ain sure he Was not sent for; L don’t think | waited if 1 tuink he was were; | cannvt say positively, BEECUBR DECLARING THAT TILTON WAS CRAZY. QW. NoW, What passed between you? A, | shook as with bim when I entered the room, and id that 1 was the bearer ot a letter irom dr Tilton to him, and we sat down; he read this iet- ter, and, asi said, he pat itin bis pocket ana made no reply — qQ. Yes, jor the moment. A. I asked him then | what reply ne had to make to the letter; he stated, | with a women’s hesitation, “Tse man is cragy,” or “I think he 18 crazy ;" something ike that. Q. Well, did you pursue the subject auy jurther? A. The subject Was talked over. Q Dia you pursue tue subject? He gave you the answer he was crazy? A sked bim What he had to say, Ana bis reply at first was, “Are you iriendly with me, Mr. Bowen ?”’ Lsaid, “Lam; we huve settled ali our differences; 1 come as a friend and desire a friendiy 1aterview ; icome in no otner way thal a irignd,’? @ Well, did your manner mualonye your sincer- ity? A, it did; most assuredly intended it shoulda. You felt it sincerely? A. I felt it. Did you show it? A. idon’t tink I did; 1 Was courteous and polite, . No; out on this matter of your friendship, did you snow it decidedly? A. 1 am not avie to re- member, sit. Q Weil, you meant to be understood that you was really bis Iriend? A. 1 weut with trendy spirit. “i And so told him? A, [so told him; he asked Me that question, bowevers 1 did Dot tell him an- asked. q tow did you geton further in the conver. sation? A, Aiter he asked me that question and [ answered it, he said te happy to hear it, and then he sekea me if 1 knew anything im regard tu the troavies in MP, ‘Ulton’s iamuy, Q. What dia you say to thaty A. Taatd that £ dia nov speciaily; 1 knew of some trouoles bus t had heard notaing th particular, Q What had you heard? A. Lt bad heard somo things, avout him, butin tre family Laid not know anyiiing about. | letter; Ae My | | as the tripartie Q. Mr. Tilton? A, Mr. Titton and Mrs. Tilton; had heard some things that day, Q. Weil, | ua only asking you what you told to Mr. Beecuer? A, 1 tola Mr. Beconer that 1 knew poring particuiar; some general things I did ut didn’t gu ibto details; tual was iny free Qs iow aid you get on after that? A. Mr. Beecher said he ov is wi ¢ had received some le! lers from Mrs, titon trom ths West, waich be de> sited Very mucs to have me sec. Q. Wout Gid you say to taar’ A, Lasked him, think, 1; the letters were private; he suid “No; I Would like to nave you callat my Nouse and see them ;" he said he would like to have me cail that evening and see him or bis Wile, only that he was molng out; he said he would iike to auve me call The Mex morning, Q. Tv see Dim or bis wife? A. His wife, Q. What did you say to that? A. 1saidl did not care to call there mysell; that I tad special reasons for not calling there, wich probably he understood. Q. You meant matters between yourself and | | Mrs. Beecher! A. 1 did, What reply did he make to that? A, I think aid that be Would make wae wi right; lasked he | him, L think, if be would press it; i think he said he had an cugagement; he was to go out of towa, or something, but that it would ail be arranged; then vesita'éd wbout giving hima reply; but at his urgent request [ said TL would go there, and L |) did cull fhe nex! moroing; Mr. Leecner spoke of | Mr. Tliton in a general Way; he epoke of Jacw and Dawes tuat 1 did not Know, but some things | did, ladies or Women? A. They were iu several in- stances, | think, bat iam hot positive about it; I khew the parties Whose names were mentioned by reputation, so that when the Dame was men- tivned it Couvesed personality to me. Q. What did you say to thaty A. I said I was aware there were duimaging reports In regard to Mr. Tilton in thatrelation; he said what he had heard was of # similar character, but he only spoke of it in a genera! way; [ named some things that J had heard; 1 spoke veneraily, also, and sald when | had severed my relations with Mr, Tiiton aseditor, thati had reasons tor that step, and | additiobal reaso s (0 sever My connection With | him entirely bad come to me since the severance. Did you say anytning as to the uamber, quan- tity, or variety of Loose nuputacions on Mr, Tuton, | | that had come to your knowledge ? A. Ido not spoke of them asa whole, and said © think Ldid; I had heara trom various sources things that satisfied me to end his relations with tue two papers. - Q. When you told him that, what did be reply ? | A. 1do not remember the reply that he made. Q Do youremember whether his repiy was in any way Intended to dissuade you irom that de- termination ¢ mark when | told nim this, Q. Did he give expression to any dissuasion or advice in the matter? A. No, Q. Noopimion’ A. No, because [had told him what I had done; I had decided about it. Q. You needed no dissuasion? A, No, L think Mr. Beecher made no remark of dissuasion, Q. Did you unuerstana Ms remarks as concur. ing with you? Objected to. Q. What impression did the Instances orougit u) by Mr. Beecher make on your mind as to dismis ing Mr, Tilton? A. My mind was made up a3 to dismissing him, and Mr. Beecher did not cnhan.e it, Q. Afcer you told Mr, Beecher that your mind Was made up what further passed? A, He re- quested me to come fo his house next morning to 100K at the contents of a number Of letters; 1 think that was all that passed. Mr, Evarts read a letter from Mr. Beecher which he had addressed to Mr. Bowen. It contaimed tne followin. passage:—‘:1 am intormed by one whose judgment and integrity 1 rely upon, and who bus Meus ol forming ab Oploioa better than any of us, that he knows the whole matter about Mrs, B—, that the stories are not true, and that the same 18 Che case WILU Other stories. Q. When you received tnat letter did your mind recur to What Mr. Beecher had toia your A. 1 can’t say; Of course | noticed the contents ol tne 1 called on Mr. Beecher on New Year's Day; 10 was my usual praciice to do so; 1 simply anbounced to him that 1 had sundered the rela- tious of Mr. ‘Tiitoa as contrioutor to the Jadepen- dent avd as editor of tue Srvoklyn Union; itis my | impression that 1 communicated tis information to him Jurin, sons were culliug, Q. On the 20ch of December did Mr. Beecher | | say anything to you in regardto a report he had heard during the month im reference toa meditated separation between Mr. and Mrs, Tile ton? A, Tial was ia the conversation of the next morning; 1 cannot say it occurred tuat afternoon or next moruing, but either that aiternoon or next moruing tuere was something said on that subject; | cannot determine whether it was in the afternoon or in the morning; I have no memory on the subject; 1am one of the founders of Ply- mouth chureu and em still connected with it. Mr. Bowen then ldentited some letters he had Writtea to Mr, Beecher. THE REDIRECT, By Mr. Fullerton—Q. Mr. Bowen, look at those two letters ond say il you addressed themto Mr. | ‘Tilton oo or about tueir respective dates? aA, 1 but I ave no distinct recoulection; very hkeiy | *4dressed them to hun, Q. And about the time of their respective Gates? A. At the ume. Mr. Bowen, do you know where the drait of the tripartite agreement now is that you refused to sigu? A, 1do vol Q What became oi it? A, Idon’t know, sir, Q. Do you recoliect what you did with it? A, I banded it to tue party who brought it to me, Q Who washer A. Mr. Cladin. Q Are you evabled to state when that was, Mr. Bowen # A, The date? Q. Yes, A. 1 cannos, q i cali your attention to the date of the tripar- tite agreement as it was signed, being April 2, 1s72—it seems to be beiore the arbitration—aad ask you it you understaua why that Wos on KW? A. [am not able \o say Woy the date was there, Q Do you recollect tf the paper that was first presented to you a8 thedrait o: the tripartite agreement porparved to have been drawn up several days belore if was presented to you and dated accordingly? A. My recollection 1s that the paper did not come to me unt! after the money ‘Was paid, add I am avle to say that when it was resented tome 1 made this statement that as rv. diton aud iyseli—— Mr, Porter—We object to this, Mr. Fullertoo—l think that ergy dudge Neilson—Cerrain y; I think it ts, ‘The wituess—Toat as Mr. Tilton ana myself had #ettied our diticuities, and as Mr. Beecuer and mnyseif had se/ tied them, that I SAW NO REASON WHY I SHOULD SIGN any such paper; I made that remark, aud remem- ber it disuncuy, Q. But you don’t recollect the date of tne in strument tiat Was first presented to you? A, No sir, Ldou't; bor the second. Q. NOW, sit, What Was in that first paper thus | presented waica you objected to? Mr. LVarts—That | onject to. The paper that is here Wili speak for itseil, Mr. Fullerton—Iis the paper here ? Mr. Evaris—We have two papers here, Mr. Futlertun—Let me have the other? Q_ (showing paper.) Look at tuls paper, which is “Bxnibit D, 1 and say Whether you rezog- nize it us tne first drait that was presented to you agreement? A. 1 believe this to be the first paper. Q. Now wilt you be kind enough to indicate, by lead peucil, the paragraph which you refused [to situ, oF the paragraph to which you raised an ob- jection? Just murk it 80 1 can read it, Mr. Bowen, please. A, The paragrapo, the words crossed, I resused to sign; all the words crossed I retused to asseat to. q Do you recollect, Mr. Bowen, whether you crossed that paragraph out at the time it was pre- sented to your did. Q And look, please, at the interiineation, in lead pencil, and say Whether it 1s m your hand- writing? A. It isin my hanawriring. Q. And the emendation you made at the time? A. At the time or waile 1 bad it; that evening and part of next morning, or before 1 delivered it back. Q. And it 1s an emendation, in lead pencil, indi- caving @ paragraph whico you were wilung to sign as a substicute lor the one you crossed outy A. It does—it does, if T signed any. Mr. Fallertou—l propose to read what is crossed out and what 1s substituted io place. That which is crossed out reads as tollows:—"l deciare that these charges, imputatious and inuendves are witnout any joundation in Jaci, te the best of my kuowiedge and beilel.”’ What is substituted ce, In jead pencil, 18 as follows:—“‘l sin- cerely regret baviny made any charges or—l sine cerely regret having made auy imputations, charges or lonuendoes uulaverabie to the Chrisuian character of Mr. Beecuer.” Now, Mr, Bowen, you may state Whetuer, with that alteration of yours— A brief controversy as to the two papers ensued, and Mr. Fullerton put another ques \ Look also ab the head of page 3, upon this aper, Mr, Bowen, and say whetver youwtended erase the word “disavow.” A. I did, }. And what did you substitute io its place? A, Witharaw.’? qQ Withdraw all? A, Withdraw all. Mr. Beacu—The word “disavow” is still retained in the pauper that was sudsequently executed. Mr. Falerton—ihe orwival read, “And I ex- pressly disavow tie charges, imputations and Mnauendoes repured as having beeu made and uttered oy me.” The wo isavow" is erased, Mr. Bowen says, and the words “withdraw all’ substituted tn tts place instead, Mr. Beach—lnat’s so, Whea the paper w: exe- cured. we Mr. Fullerton—Look at the original draft, ri Bowen, anG stace whether you sruck ous | these Words aiter the words “I Kuow nothing.” Did you strike out the words “aerogatory to tis reputation as a clergyman ora man? A. I dia. Q. And did you insert im their place msvea anything ese? A. L did, Q. And if so, what? A. Those words, q. Namely, “which should preven’ me irom ex- tending to him M, most cordial friendsmp, conu- dence und Coristian ieilowsiip.? BOWES'S IGNORANCE OF THE LETTERS, Q. At tle tie Oo; the arpitration did you know anything about what is known as tiie letter of apology? A. Laid not, that t remember. Al the time of the signing of the tripartite agreement did you kuow wnything about it? A, Not that I recetlect, q. At tnac time did you know of the existence of any of those other lotrers—namely, the ietter of Feb wary 5, 1812? A, What avout? q. Well, 6 38 &@ wOtortous letter, A. L don't know, Mr. Evarts—Mr. Beecher’s letters, Mr. Beach—foose given in evidence in the course of tie trial. Fhe withess—{ can’t tell you until you show me the letvera, A. 1 do not think he made any re- | the ours of reception, while per- ¢ | adjudications, | relate to auytuio, terial. Mr. Fullerton— While they are icusiug up those | exnibita, Mr. Bowen, i will ask you whether, at the time of the wroitration, you did not call the utention of the acbitraiors to section 61in the | contract between yourse! ap! Mr. Lilton relation vo the Independent, which 18 a8 follows:— Tals coutract may 0¢ ferminatea by elther party at auy time by paying tu the olner party the sum of $2,500, or by the death of either or by mutual consent, and in nootner way.” Do you recollece his calling the attention Oo! tne arbitrators to tpi clause? A, I think ne cid. Q. And do you also recollect, Mr. Bowen, that he calied the attention of the arbitrators to the other contract, ia respect to Daily Union or tae Brookiyn Union, sections 3 and 11, which 1 will read? Mr, Fullerton then read a lengthy agreement, entered into between Mr. Boweo and Mr, Titov, rectiing the terms of the coutract. Q. LO you recollect ms calling attention to that? A. [thing he did. Mr. Evarts—You understand those contracts are in evidence? Mr, Fullerton—Yes, but I want to know whether the wttentivn of the arbitrators was calied to the several provisions. Yo withess—And didn’t Mr. Tilton in that arbl- tration base his claim ior damages upon the re- spective paragraphs which | bave pow calied your attention tof’ A. f don't remember whether he aid entirely; he presented all the case irom his standpoint, I call your attention to the letter of February | % Yon irom Mr, Beecher to Mr, ton, and a Q. Were those lact8 and bumes connected with | . bee esas 4 Whether you knew of ite existeuce at the time either of the arbitration or the signing of the ii ariite agreement? A. I have no recollection of it whatever, Q. [now call your attention to tne letter of the same date, from Mr, Beechor to Mr. Tilton, Did you know of thav? A. I did not. Q. And did you Know anything of the existence of the letter commencing, ‘the blessing of God rest uponyou.”? it has no date, I believe? A. No, ir. . I call your attention to the letter of February 5, 1372, aod ask the same question with regard to that commencipg there ? indicating.) A. No rec ollection of it Whatever. Q. Did you know anything at that time of the churge Mrs. Tilton had made against Mr. Beecher in writing ? Mr. Evarts objected, on the ground that it was ‘op not material or Mr. Beach—' knowledge, Mr. Fullerton—Thig 1s concerning no knowledge it is Competeus Jor US Lo prove that he was entire- ly Ighorahtol the existence of this correspondence and of these in evidence ‘@, at Ube time of the signing oi the tripartite agreement, Mr. EVarts—1 don’: see how it 1s material, but I @ propose to prove he bad no haven't cared anything about these letters; tnis | 18 Nova Controversy between Mr. Bowen and Mr. | Beecher as to Whether he sbhou.d be held to the tripartite agreement, BOWEN NOU AWAKE OF MRS. TILTON’S CHARGE, By Mr, Futlerton—Did you know anything of the existence of any charge which Mrs, Tilton bad big against Mr. Beecher in writing? A. 1 did not, Q. Orany retraction of that charge? A..l dia now. ie oF any recantation of the retraction? A. I not. Q. Now, Mr. Bowen, Iunderstood you to say that you informed Mr, Beecher on the Monday fol- lowibg January 1, that you would then discharge | | Mr. Tutton? A. Ia id. Q. What time in the day was that? A. itwasin the evening; it was after four o’clook, 1 shouid © Judge. q. Was it before or after this letter was written | to you which is marked Exnibit4ss? A. Is was al- _ ter that letter was received, Q You had received that letter before you told Mr. Beecuer? A. Yes, sir; I received it in the morning and J told him in the evening. By Mr. Keach—What time, with reference to the receipt of the letter, was the relation of Tilton sundered entirely with your paper? A, On the Saturday belore the last day of the year. By Mr. Fullerton—i cali your attention to this evidence of Mr. Beecher:—"Q. Well, aid Mr. Movl- ton say that Mr, Bowen charged tiat you had con- fessed adultery to him? A. l—ne did—yes; ne Raid 80; 1 was only hesitating 4s to whether it was in that interview or not; ne said so at some une or the interviews, and about that time. Q. At about this time’ A. Yes, sir. Q. Well, what did you reply to that ? it; when I coniess adultery to Mr. Bowen I am sure it will be impressed upon my mind. Q. Vid you say to him on that subject whetver Mr. Bowen iad ever made any such charse to you personally? A. 1 said to bim from the origin of the aileulties between Mr. Bowen and me down to Feoruary or January aod Feoruary, 1870, and again December 26; there had been several arbitracions—that is, there bad been wany conversations, but’ Mr. Bowen haa never bad any difculty with me except busine: dificuity, and that ne never, under aby circum- stunces, nade a statement which implicated my moral caaracter.’? Mr, Evarts—How does this become a subject of | redirect? Mr, Beach—Contradicting Mr, Beecher. My, Evarts—But itis not redirect; it does not toat { inquired about. Mr, Pullertup—It is a question we omitted to putin the direct examination imadvertentiy, Judge Neligou—inadvertently ¢ Mr. Fullerton—Yes. My atteotion was callea to it during recess by Mr, Beaca, Mr. Evarts—This 13 a conversation given on our part from Mr. Beecher as to What passed Detween bim and Mr, Moultun—Mr Beecher and Mr, Moal- ton, thi having given Mr. Moulton’s view of tne ton between himself and Mr. Beecher. question My question has not been put, sir. | have ' Mr. Fullerton —You had better hear m; iin been walting for my learned adversary to bunt up | papers. My question is tuis—Did you at any time state to Mr, Beeeher anything, charge which implicated his moral character ? the objection, Mr. Evar(s—All that nas been given in evidence is as toa conversation between Mr. Moulton jd Mr. Beecher, and Mr, Beecher speaks of that conversation im contradiction of Mr, Moulton. Bowen cannot be called to contradict or, in that statement, the only stacem that Mr. Beecher made was conceruing what passed between him aud Mr. Moulton (Mr. Evarts Tead the testimony as quoted by Mr. Fullerton, and continued). Ali that is given isa part or the couversation betweea Mouton and Beecher, Mr, Beecuer had co right vw testify in regard to what passed oetween Mi. Bowen and bit Mr. Fulierton—We think the question ts @ proper one. Judge Nelison—I don’t think it 1s @ proper one. I don’t thiok we can take that. STRUGULE OVER THE WOODSTOCK Mr. Fullerton then procured r ER, celebrated | Woodstock letter from the witness aud offered it fu evidence. It is @ letter from Bowen to Liteon, Written in 1863, Mr. kvarts objected and asked how it was ma- Mr. Pallerton—It is a letter to which attention Was calicd by the other side. Mr, Evarts—Not in the first instance. Mr. Fuilerton—Yes, sir, in the first instance, They asked Mr. Bowen to refer toit, and give its date, and he weut to the letter and read is date. sir, Evaris—[aidn’: ask him the gate. | asked him how old the Woodstock letter was, and he Said he couldo’t tell without looking atit. Taa.'s ail. ‘he Woodstock letter was spoken of by the arbitrators as one of those papers that were to be disposed Of, Notuiag said about burning it, but it was to be returned, Mr, Bowea differs irom them. That Goes not give a right to read it. Mr, Beach—Tbis letver, sir, was snown to Mr. Beecher and the testimony of Mr, Mouiton in re gard to it was to tuts effect id you se to wr. Beecher what Mr. Lillon proposed to do with that jetter? A. Yes, sir. Q. What did you say upon that subdjecty A. I toid bim Mr, Ititen tu- tended to pubiish it. say? A. Mr, Beecuer said that the statement that he nad ever confessed to Mr. Bowen was en- lirey Gutrue; he said he had had differeaces with Mr. Bowen and settioments witn Mr, Bowen, and r. Bowen had never raised with iim ot any ch settlement any question of adultery; he said he presumed he Knew what that portion of tue letter referred to,” &c. 1 propose to show by the production oi the letter and vy tne evi- agence of Mr. Bowen that the statements of Mr. Beecher apon that subject were un- true; that this letter paving been reierred to in Wis letter waich you submitied to Mr, Beecner— Mr. Beecher having made remarks concerning it—the Wovdstock letter and its contents—why, We suppose, sir, 1t maturaily and legally draws in the iustrument tse! én in cocnection WIth the commentaries; that tg part of the evi- dence and conduct of Mr. Beever cannot be properly understood except im connection wita the original paper, au instrument to which these declarations and reierences ailude, Mr. byarts—[nis letter is made somewhat Jawous in the pubdlic consideration, thouga it | never has been given to the pubitc, by its being relerred to iM another jetter that has beea mave pabdlic. Now, | canuot understand how my learned iriends cau seriously propose to give in evidence bere @ letter written in tne year 1863 by Mr. Bowen to Mr. Tilton. Tois is no evidence of anything that Mr. Bowen has said to Mr. Beecher, and | am une able to see the ground on which a letter written in 1863 is to be given in evidence in tiis issue, ee 18 @ Matter which had its first beginning in 3. Mr. Beach—It don’t make apy difference as to the origin or the antiqnity of tue levter. vived at times. The ietter of Mr. Tilton to Mr Bowen was shown Lo air. Beecner. Mr. Evarts—Mr. Beecner says that’s not 80, Mr. Beach—O yes, he said Mr. BVarts—He said it was shown to him at the time it was written, Judge Neilson sad that he did not think that he could admit cue letter, Mr. Heacli—sappose this letter contalas a charge of the very fact woich Mr, Beecher denies was ever made against ulm. At the time of this con. versation spokea of by Me. Moulton, the fact of the charge on tae part of Boweo against Beecher of adultery aud of moral impropriety Was then preseliied tO fs mind, and He stated that Mr. Bowen never made any such charge. contradic We will prove st was made to Mr. Beecher, re KVarts—What ? that charge of Mr. Bowen's. Mr, utierton—1) at's all, Site Hy Mr. Bvarts—1 omitted to ask, Mr. Bowen, tn- | | advertent & question. rious papers which have been given _ A. [think Tiaughed; [denied | it now under | Q. What did Mr. Beecher | tois conversation and tuese | It is res | Can't we that statement and show that he did? | gs Ik it 18 too remote and ought y Mr. Bowen, did you ever | remonstrances will see that paper beiore (showing the yellow paver \ containing the legend, “ Spotls from ‘new friends | charcnes in Jersey City next Sunday, i 5 for the enre:hment of old”)? A, I have no reedl: | Teeve? you had seen it that night of the arbi . AT you en it that night o: tion, you would have remembered It, sunaate you? A, [should say I never saw it re. |” Q You didn’: append ttto the check when you | gave it to Mr. Tilton’ A, I did not, | This closed the examination of ir. Bowen. DELMONICO’S LIEUTENANT. | ohn Napoleon Longhi testified that there wae t | no upper restaurant in down town Delmonico’s; that they did not move up stairs till June 27, 1874, On the cross-examination the witness statec that there Was a iestaurant in the basement, next door to Deimonico’s, the entrance to which was about twenty-two feet from the tormer place, aes then adjourned till to-day at ele o'clock. NEW YORK CITY. Mr, Henry Morenouse, of England, preached is | the Church of the Holy Trinity, Madison avenue, | last evening, to a large cougrezation. Mr. W. L. Ormsby, Jr, lectures this evening | before the New York Liberal Ciub, No, 30 Stuyve- sant street, on ‘Educational Problems.” | AgomMecer of the Nineteenth precinct found the body of a new born babe in the vacant lot at the corner of Sixty-fourth street and First avenue, yesterday. Jacob Ockleman, while at work at No. 53 Market street yesterday morning, sustained @ fracture a the right leg by a barrel faliing on him. He was removed to Bellevue. The disbursements of the St. George’s Society for the month of April amount in cash value ta $383 90, distributed amongst 201 persons, includ ing 108 meai and lodging tickets. Rey. W. H. Leavell, of Jackson, Miss., delivered ® lecture last evening, in the Calvary Baptist | church, Twenty-thi street, between Fifth ana Sixth avenues, on “The Southern Problem.’ The spelling match mania continues. They hadit at the Free Tabernacle Methodist Episcopal chureh | in Thirty-fourth street last night. Prizes were distributed, and Professor David B. Scott gave out the words, Angust Unger, residing in Hoboken, bad his skull iractured yesterday afternoon by a barrel falling upon him from the second floor of the store No, 145 Chambers street. He was taken to | the Park Hospital, througs Comptroller Green paid yesterday, Paymaster Falls, the oMcers and employés of the Department of Public Charities and Correctior inciuding the Isiands and Lospitals, in full to May 1, amounting to $23,340, While at work on the new butlding corner of | Fiftieth street und Third avenue yesterday after+ noon John Hassett, of No, 954 Third avenue, fell into the sub-cellar, sustaining severe injuries, He | was taken to Bellevue Hospital. Henry Bodenheim, a merchant, doing business at No. 129 Duane street, died suddenly sast | Weanesday evening while visiting some friends at No, 236 East Nineteenth ssreet. Coroner Wolt man will hold an inquest in the ¢ase, The commendation of meritorious boys of Gram-* mar School No. 85 was yesterday witnessed by @ itors, Short speeches were made by ex-Governor Seymour, Mayor Vaux, of Philadel | phia; James W. Gerard, School Inspector Fifth district; Professor Hunter, of the Normal Colle; aud Commissioner Wood. Among those preseat | Were also Commissioners Dowd and Baker a | Messrs. Schell, Britton, McLean and Mri, Scneol ‘Trustees. Inspector Kimball presided, and de id clamations were given by Masters Clarke Liman, | Dumber of vi BROOKLYN. | | | Isaac Davis was committed py Justice Eames yesterday for forcibly entering the premises of Oswaid Edien and stealing wearing apparel, Superintendent of Police Fols yesterday issued @ general order requiring the members of the force to wear their summer clothing on and alter the 8th ins . | Frederick Schmeling, the laborer who sell through the hatchway in the sugar retinery at the foot of Ninth street, died yesterday and Coroner Nolan was requested to bold an inquest, | Belore Judge Gilbert, in the Supreme Court yes- terday, @ motion Was made to amend the con» plaint in the suit of Kate E. Georgi against Leo poid Georgi, On the ground of abandonment, The | Court reserved its decision. Frederick Schelling. the man who fell from thé | thira floor of De Castro & Donner’s sugar refinery | to the ground floor, through @ hatchway, on Tues | day, aid nov vreuthe bis \ast Until yesterday morn ing, his vitality astonishing the physicians. | Yesterday aiteraoon Mrs. William Blake, resid | ing at No, 106 Wyckof street, Brooklyn, leit a cup of hot tea wi‘hin reach of her infant daughterRe becca, aged twenty-one montis. The little one drank a 8:nali quantity of the te nd it was so hot that she died « lew moments afterward, Our oner Simmons Ws notified to hold an inquest, STATEN ISLAND. Large hauis of shad are still made daily by the Staten Isiana fishermen, and cartloads of them are sent to Fulton Market. Ascension Day services were heid in a number of the churches on Staten Island yesterday, amd the public schools were ciosea, Yesterday morning there were nine square rigged and eleven fore-aua-aft vessels at anchor off Staten Island, most of them bound out and de tained by southerly winds, | The Quarantine Commissioners now hola meep ings daily, excepting Sundays and holidays, and will continue to do so auring the quarantine season, Which ends on the 11th of November. Drs. Anderson and Lea held the autopsy and in- quest upon the body of Frank McAdams, who died | at Police Headquarters, Stapleton, on Wednesaay evening. The verdict was that he died ‘rom the excessive use of liquor. The body was yesterday taken by McAdams’ fatner and interred in St Pever's burying ground, Mr, Julius Credo, Treasurer of Edgewater, will | commence the sales of property for unpaid taxes | at the Village Hall, Stapleton, on Wednesday next, Many delinquents Nave already paid the back taxes, and most of the property disposed of at last year’s saie has been redeemed by the owners Upon payineut vf cosis and fliteen per cent, | NEW JERSEY. | | The annual meeting of the Essex County Board of Chosen Freeholders was held yesterday in tae Court House at Newark, when the present Board wound up its affuirs, preparatory to @ final adjournment next week. } PROFITABLE BOND-AGE. | ‘The Aqueduct Board of the city of Newark, which consists of three repubiicans and three democrats, with the Mayor of the city President ez oficio, have recently issued bonds to the value of $600,000. For these bids were opened on Wednes- day. One large financial institution of Newark offered to take up the whole half million at pars but the Board thought it could do better, and it did, It issued $150,000 worth only, and for these received 104 1-16. ‘the last sale of bonds only 97, so that it would seem ‘he confidence in the city securities is improving rather tham decay- | ing. purcaasing party is a New York frm, | EXCITEMENT IN A CEMETERY. | ‘The Delaware and Lackawanna Railroad Come pany being about to nse a corner of the old Cath- olic Cemetery adjoining the Bergen Tanne: in Jere sey City, the removal of the bodies tn trans ferred portion commenced a few days since. Thia was not generally known till yesterday, when several hundred persons assombled in the ceme- tery amid great indignation and excitement. The workmen fled from the place, and several ef the boxes that bad been brought to receive the moulds ering remains were smashed by whe crowd. Angry threats were utiered, and a flerce determination | Was manifested to prevent the further progress | of the work. The angry muiutude would listen to no remoastrance, | _ The other side of the case is that a small corner of the southwest side was condemned in the usual legal form jor the use of the railroau com- pany as it ts absolutely indispensable to the prog “O01 their road. there is not a singie gr or family Jot on the plot so condemned and the most Scruptious care hes Deen exercised that the re. Mains of the dead snowd be treated with Chris. tian decency and respect. Tne removals are made uuder the direction and at the expense of the cemetery commictee, acting on behalf of Bishop Corrigan. The remains were imterred ta another ction. Wherever it was possible to ascert: | the names of ine relatives of the dead they were | Hotified, but as the cractin question ts what is termed “poor grotud™ this was impracticaole, ex cept in A lew instances, As a proo: that the ceme very Committee are prepared to satisfy the sug ViVINg reiacives 1 this respect, Murtwer removals Will be stopped for sume days and ali reasonable receive due consideratias, Notice to this effect witl be read in all the Cathoilp =