New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-10-24
FORREST as. FORREST.
Argument on Motion to Restrain Edwin
FORREST FROM lenyiug this State,
RENE CoURT.-GeneralT Term Before Judges FL
Wards AID mITcHrLL.

SUPREME CouRT-Genera Before Judges EpMOSDs Ed
AID mIrcurlL
Mr. OOonor continued his argument yesterday, in sup
port rights of Mrs F. TO writ of ne eXeat restrain
Nv of the case us appears etdavits which have
already been pueshedhe declared that Mr. u, + hid
The p5o9f Of which was his saying to ms agS. e 5
she His motive In bringing the suit in Phadelphiais
induced probably by Hatred toward her love for some one
The suit broueii by Mrs aguinst him in this Court for
limited divorce and man,enance he conended was well
founded md the fears expressed by her that he would dis
pose his property and leave her without the means OF
inaintence also that she had reason to appreheqd he
Tyoud endeavo by force to remove her TO another state
nre 100 well founded After the Mr. f. has pursued
in regard 10 his WIFE, Mr. sad there is no reason to
and renvee Pennsylvania, and unless restrained by ne
exeat that he would endeaNor TO get hGr away 10 fnlaae
heYe in his suit against her unless she also present. Mr.
UC. alluded various circumstances 10 snow ta MI
could not really believe his wife be guilty he also con-
tended from the aiayts that M f. was not III luc re.
sident OF rensy aS he declared b4 w ms pun put
remarks The contents OF the alhdaVls. ~,
In relation The law abosng the Wnt OF ne eNcal Mt.
DC said he would acknowledge did III the sane manner
that it abolished the writ ofcnpe4s respondendm out
that still left sufficient IN another clause Tor me Cou 70
applv il TO a like this where claim is not actually
due but viii probably become so, and that Court IS
TO protect awie from being abandoned and impoverished
and disgraced undeseyed by her husband Inc Sour mas
aso power at common @W as u s,DoH S nS ND smecan
practice and decisions SINCE Although MI r. now allows
bis ,va 81 400 year il is but quarter part OF his
r rs NOT sufficient for her to live in the style had
necms,omed and MOI secured 10 her in any way but de
pending entirely upon his VIII ny ~ ~ aue oet re-
i,s continuing the remedy of The eNea in this case
MrVml Buren, spoke for sorle time IN reply 10 MI Y T.
In egurd TO what has been by the opposite counsel
there every safety TO what is alleged Mrs r. appre-
junction restraining MT f. from disposng OF his property
from pursuing the suit he has commenced III Philadelphia,
d m, sn,rnc he hols where she resides and she can
enter nulicc of lispendens if she wishes 10 hold claim
The real estate that she has ample security as 10 that the
ijuncons however cannot stand, bnt the argument IN re-
piDfI isl sd ne 10 u,t
he ne eNeat removed and Mr. be free to leave the State
mis- own business now suffering r aSnl he nome Of s
properly touudtd he has not abandoned and refused 10
provide for her but aowshef S5oo ayear ne mas never
III treated her nor has she any for apprehension OF Ill
his part when he discovered nnproprey on
her part he proposed That she should I'VE sepofaE M'e
been regularly paid il She had not been aware that his
charges correct she would noiso readily assented
10 separate maintenance.
AZ 10 the residence of Mr. Forrest in Pennsylvania
realvo he having removed there where s sisters reside
in MAY last As TO large house spoken of that he is
building here and intends make hf home il has been
finished and he'd never made up IL IL nor did he intend
nregqrd 10 his bringing his suit ngsnsJ Mrs in Phia,
delphia was advised 10 do eid Mir Van Buren,, by
ysefard my associate counsel and some OF the most emf
dent cCunselin Phladelphahe was SO ADVISED because
he had broug the complaint before the Legislature Of
hys re- res. V nov ght KRIS 6as every oppoa
nifty and ues 10 defend herself but declares that she will
answer that complaint whatever may be The acton o.
This Court IS what Mr. Lawson had sad II was based
on what person had said or something read IN Tue
AS 10 The &c ereat being abolished Mr.. Van B. read de-
cson othe superior Court 70 that ctect-aso the decara
siCsl OF the Cnnu,issiopcrs of,hc Code
Il respect 10 The laws Of England IN force before the re-
yQNon, perhaps they had so0 hand IN causing that yo
iutioand when protective law of the present day abso-
utely abolishes imprisonment in al civil where there
isnQ aud tits hardly TO be supposed tha, the Colrt viii
give construction BY which to break down its Intention
and decide for the imprisonment the individual M Van
Buren, ,onepded thai ee decision OF Judge Edwards al
Special. Term that the Great is abolished especially
where there is mode OF gcrou pointed out by the c0un
in cases Of this kind is the correct sue aud should be sis
tained-aso that the copgiu should TO dismissed as RI
having bees brought by next friend.
NroC seplied hesaid Mrs +. did not agree 10 seps-
rate uanienence hui perely Welded TO she coud not
40 ot1erwshe also ceneuded thathe peadings as othe
next friend coald be aaended>nd also that the decision
IL ihis respectshouR DO reviewed II IN conflict With
apotberecision OF another branch OF the Supreme Court
nee;sioH rpseTYeI