The New York herald., 1850-12-08
Supreme Court,-spcclaI Term.
Judge Edmonos presiding
FORREST VS. FORRESr.-MOrtON TO DISSOLVE

FORREST VS. FoRREsr-MortoN TO DISSOLVE ~
JUNCTION.
At ten o'clock on Saturday morning John Van
Buren,, Eeq, informed the Court OF his intention
move to di,solve the Injunction in the above case
Charles QConor, Esq, OF counsel for the com plain
ant, read affidavit made by Mrs. Forrest, stating
that although due diligence has been used she has
been unable TO procure the adayits Of cert parties
which she advised by counsel necessary to
resist the motion and asked the Court for postpone
ment
Judge Edmonds-It appears to n that the testimony
Of the parties referred to is not necessary the
motion TO dissolve the injunction.
Mr. OConoT-I willing, your honors, to make
adavt that il is necessary II is necessary in regard
to the residence of MIR Forrest. am not disposed TO
state exactly what II Is. but will make az ahidaTit
necessary that ii is material
Juoge Edmonds-It the motion be laid till next
saturdsyi will it answer your purpose
Mr 0Conor-Yes, that will Go.
Mr.. Van Buren, Your honor will recollect that the
bin in this case is filed for the purPo,e, among other
against Mrs Forrest in the State OF Ponnsyyaua for
divorce; on the ground Of adultery The bin Is filed
under three aspects, of which is that the defend
ant in this neglected TO provide for his wife;
ther that he has treated cruelty, and thirdly that
Now we moved ON nsio sfhaavit that we had been
arrested aswrt Of ereat, to sst aside Tne writ
set aside at the special term appeal was taken
To the general term and THE argument Of the
the ground rather that there was nothing in the
bill Of complaint nor In the AFFIDAVIT, which authorized
the isuing of the writ OF ne ezea and y s under the
same complaint and affidavit that the injunction,
be sultsinse at ali The Seeis,on on that ro,,on wa.
that there nothing In the that showed Gban-
donment. The bill showed that the complainant was
iully provided for; that she not aban ioned
man and the motion was decided that express
ground We now move on the answer, denying the
facts stated in the complaint and ar dayit pany
ing It, this being the fret time that the defence has
ever appeared before the court They served
tho 18th OF November and notice OF motion given for
the13d. on the 23d the motion postponed 10 the
fellow ing Friday o. Friday CT previous, affidavit
was shown 20 n associate, on which the oounse fer
tLa other eide intended to Tor another postpone
mtut 1t was again laid till Tuesday; again till
this day: Nov, what l wish to direct the Gttep-
ton of the court to rs, Why was it not known to
the complainant when the motion was laid over
on the fret Saturday that TIL, testimony which they
fp'as Of would be required and why Ithe motion
ret down ior Friday at their tstion, when they
must have known what they wanted to resist tLs. mo-
ton IL the affidavit Of Mr.. snelhr is required they
knew IL wst a they get the motion down tor Friday
u the affidavit OF the pcrson in Connecticut Is
sary, thty must have known it then. Vow, submit
10 the court that there is nOtLias In tho statement
made here to authorize the pg,tponement Of this
motion. The Injunction csuld mot be maintained on
thehn itsclf-tbat was an elect decided by tho gu.
pr,n Court in setting sside the writ OF ue trea Out
there are her circumstances attending this case
which are worthy OF confideraton AZ the time this
the plsinaut for divorce on the rrour of adater
The bill In tha case .charssd Mr torsst with several
acts sf sapliery with several different ptrsous 10
Fss amended AZ the request cf the comp analt 20 az
To make Il rsr rrsr,t, and 20 include not first
covered BY t. To hatthe e6hipians lesR9,rt put In
gnsNtT denying the chareei and rcicrtInE 6h tn-
complainant the crime Of adultery with a vericly Of
peEons. Instead Of replying 20 that answer Instead
q rro'eeuting That fuit-the P!aintd Immediately
Al eounsd chose another tribunal and is nov
proceeding with another action, in an another
etuit' whh View Of prosecuting for 40 ab'olnte
divorce. Now, this Il the mode on which the
defendant vas arref.ed on the writ ct ~ ilsa',
nnd prevented from leaving The state EN- 1nsd from
ihttftefirg with his property. ana from proceeding
With has suit u ftuusy vana; ani submit. thertfore,
undsr the circumstances ot the case t g. which
ought not 20 be DELAYED any iurthsr especially as to
the manner in which this Indulgence is utOd 4 have
received etttr from Mr Dallas Mr. Forests coun-
sci desiring to kuow when the motion VII b. disposed
a. TO proceed with TIRE sut IN Philadelphia not
Wishing 20 come in collision WITH the courts in tbs
STATE sud suTpoiug that this mo,icn already de-
ciesd BY tie decision on the trssf. This notice
must b resisted on two propoFtirus One D. vkeshsr
the defendant iu this sut is resident CO Philadelphia
or ras wtsn the bill filed, the other. whether 10
" conceivable under the state ot fact. before the court
that he q Trofecuting veZatious suit there Can t
b. possible that such could be maae TO inter.
isEe with the courts OF another state 10 the ury of
the ~ hts Fl resident q another State think
sha BE- able 60 show the court with al jsfrepse thai
under no circumstances. could such inuc elton be
granted on the fgcts oct out in the bill Ifram in
error. think ths count will agree With me that the
Gaze must be t.tpored OF On these two points Nov a
there doubt that Mr.. Forrest is resident n Penn
fylyania, and vas az the time cf 6lin NE liu The
contrary cannot be shown, aud if that y esaNshed
this Injunction must be dissolved. I submit under
ne creGmsteEces OF the case tha, ths motion should
cone
Judge Edmouds granted the delay asked for ana
De motion vas postpouedto saturday ucXs.