The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-06-28
Superior Court-Spccinl Term.

JrNE I-h The MATER q Smih Coddington and JYyfs
james Uoihn Utbb-Judge Sandford in delivering the
opinion of the Court in the matter If Coddngton aud
Wife rs. J. Watson Webb ssid-rhis argued be-
fore three Of the Judges Of this Court who
sent. The u one, from it, being we'll
understood that does not require that should very
elaborate in stating IT, shall therefore be ms brief "a
possible in What have to say. Mrs Coddngton, for
mery Miss Inman, when she young girl about lG
years Of sge had carried on correspondence with Ma
thanel T. Willis without the kno owedge OF her pareata
Upon this circumstance becoming known to her fathr
he desrous that such correspondence should
lvered up TO him and accordingly, with this view he
desired that Mr. Geo Buckham intimate friend Of his
and Col Webb (the defendant r ntus ate friend
should obtain such letters for him Accordingly MIR.
Buchham wrote note to Nathaniel p. Wills appoint
irg time to meet him At his Office, without informing
HIM Ms Mr. huckham avsrs upon oath for what purpose
such meeting desired. Mr.. Willis attended mt the
appointed time, and then, for the first, made
that 1t desired that such letters shoai be
given up. MIR. Willis at consented to attend at n
future time for the purpose Of delivering those letters
into the haf ds Of Mr. Inmans friends At the time ap-
point. d. Mr. Willis did attend; and after
ton he asked 10 whom ne should give the letters, Cd
webb answered give them 10 me Mr. Willis thereupon
sealed up the letters and handed them 10 Col Webb
the Imrose ef being delivered up to Mr.. Inman This
state of facts Is affected the part Of the defendant
only far he states that Mr. Willis brought the let
ters In a sealed package directed to Colonel Webb; and
tina. esides the desire Of Mr. Inman he had TIE an
tbority Of the daughter Miss Inman for the reception
of the letters Mrs Coddington states in her complaint
that the letters were received for her father In
her, and that MIR. Inmsn to receive them for her.
and thnt she should have received them and
titled TO receive them, from Colonel Webb The com
plant lo states In this that during the that
Colonel Webb had possession Of the letters he has
tims been importuned to deliver them to the plaintiff
but he has done having upon request that
was made successively promised TO do at future
time. The esntf states that after the death OF Mr.
1nman, which occurred in 1871, application made
by MIR. Buckham for them; but he met with the
same reception being promised that they should be-
handed 10 him al future time. The plaint Of
Mrs Codd gton further shows that during the present
spring controversy having arisen between the de-
f,ndsnt ard Nathaniel p Willis an artiol. appeared
In paper o which the defendant Is the editor auding
to daughter ofawry dear friend of his having been
seduccd by N, j. Willis; and although In the article
alluded to the name " not mentioned and although
tubfequent article which appeared In paper " which
Willh " the proprietor, made II certain who
the individual alluded to- yet the plaintiffs state that
fom the article In Colonel webbs paper all who were
acquainted with the Inman family the
knew who was the person meant Mrs Coddington,
claiming these letters her property contending
that they received by Webb for her considers her
self entitled TO them; AID the controversy alluded to
having arisen, and she believing that y not safe for
Colonel webb longer 10 possess her letters asks of this
Court that will compel Colonel webb 10 deliver those
letter. to her which he received from Nathaniel r. viii
is; and she axis that he shall be restrained from pub
lshipE sny part % her letters Upon the hearing OF this
case and upon the cvdene produced before ~ the
Judges a this Court an injunction granted res
training Colonel Webb from publishing any portion Of
said letters. from making any of the same
or NON copying any part thereof The summons ani
complaint were served on Webb ON the fourth of
June, and he served with the Injunction n short
time sit'r, duly authenticated by the Court. About
the same time, order Crantad by one Of
the Judges q this Court, directing the defendant
10 Hppssr and show cause, before this Court Why an
rurrose o taking possession q the letters In the of
the dsfendunt This order served upon Colonel Webb
but as be did not appear, TO answer ", order
made that Andrew Warner Eco should be appointed 10
receive them Of the defendant and referee wa appoint
I'd before whom the rartfs should appear 10 carry such
ordr into effect and all peraons prevented from
extracting copying sad letters and one was per
nted 20 examine or 60 read them. except the parties
counsel In this suit This injunction was granted on
the sxth a June. and the Monday following Colonel
webb personally appeared before the Court in his own
dfnce, end pleaded that having been mislcd ny the
no vfurl I.4L
dttIrd 10 h released from the Injunction and proceeded
to state that the letters he had In his possession were not
The lttsrs referred 10 in the mplain for there
nothing n these letters cf the nature stated by the
TaintiGs; ard from the letters in his there
unat niae proof that the author OF them had been
stductd by Winis. The defendant then proceeded to
read txtrscs from of the letters, when the Court
stcrpd bim in consequence Of the injunction restrain
ing him from making these letters known to any one,
and he recommo nded by the Court employ roun
se 20 aid him in the of his suit Such sdyics
was accepted and order granted that the plain
tiGs show Why the default aiken against Coz Webb
should not he opened This argued before this Court
aud as the defendant alleges that he was mislcd- not
the default should be opened aud the defendant be al
loved TO plead. motion was mad. by the plaintiffs
that an attachment be issued against Col Webb for con
tempt of Court In dsregsrding the injunction granted
by the Judge The defence Of the defendant H. that M
original copy a the injunction shown 10 him aud
he had nosubentic proof such injunction ever hav
Ing been granted by the Court According 70 the old
rules Of practice ofboth England and this country
would not have been necessary 20 have shown the org
nai cory the injunction NJ was held In the time of
Lord Eldon that " individual had evidence which he
bad good reason 70 suppose correct that proceedings
were instituted against him " sufficient without
aserce OF an original copy a any paper granted by the
court ~ ftrinstance where person vas In court and
was told by the Judge that certain order had been
granted against him OF where II publicly announced
IN oTsn court by individual present held that
vas sufficient evidence for the person against whom
the scton had and he violated the orders of the
Court be vas h,d responsible for his actions But
oordrg 90 the Code of Practice II 4 necessary that
In ervipg paper issuing from the Court that the org
nal thtud be shown and In this does not ap
frfr that the defendant the orgira order II the
court VI v our opinion that aetDn cannot b. had
sgaint the dcfGdsnt for contempt. Judge s. ndford
len preceded ~ consider the motion 70 ~ aside the
irjuncicn prol ibtinr Webb IN publishing any part
n the lcters In his session aud appointing Andrew
Nafnsr a. receiver 20 take pos etsipn q them The
Court az opnsn that u unsafe fer the letters
ltircf rman in the hsnds q; the defendant aul
10 orinirn could be entertained that MIR Waraer
80 proper person 20 receive them the Court directed
thpt the injunction should be affirmed
Trcas u Iarrrim o5s Rritff r. fauu,f- Order ~
cansr go ssdc without costs and original taxed bin
to uatd
Eetid po'rs g., Jgrst, Perm, S.c-Jndgment At
the Special Term sud ttla ordered costs t. abide