New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-12-19
THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE.
Catbarine N. Forrest va. Edwin Forrest-Ed-
win Forrest vs. Catharine n. Forrest
SUPERIOR COURT-BEPoRg JUDGE OAKLEY
SECOND DAY- Thursday, Dec. Is.

SUPERIOR COURT-BEPoRE JUDGE OAKLEr.
SECOND DAY.. Thursday, Dec. IS.
Catherine N. Forrest agt Edpin Forrest,
and counter charge.-COntinued.
The Judge said, as to the offer to prove declars.
tons and admissions of defendant, not alleged in
connection with any particular period, he asked Mr..
Van Buren, what he had to say to it. Mr. Van b.
said the book he had been referred 10 yesterday by
the Judge go! locked up in this room and he has no,
teen able to see IL Mr.. Van B. after looking at the
books said that bill Of divorce could not De sus-
tanned on confessions and declsratlons-the precise
offer IN this case IS general declaration IN regard
10 conduct as to which conduct no evidence has
teen given, and he would object to II al thus stage of
the irrelevant 1t could not sustain divorce
and there is 10 authority TO sustain the offer.
Mr.. o. ConOr sad, in referring to the book spoken
a, mentioned yesterdsy)it lays tle general rule
your Honor seems TO suggest, that If accompanied
BY evidence as TO facts the admissions might per-
haps, be given, and as to collision, II the crcun-
stances show this not 70 be the csse, but there is
evidence of decided hostility, the idea Of collision
ay be done away with. Will also refer to Pointer
on Marriage and Divorce, p. 1876. These cases are
tried before the Court, and not by Jury, in Eng
land The wor6 SAYS lat admissions OF husband
cannot be allowed but a confession may be taken IN
connection with testimony as to circumstances, al
though the sole testimony OF the husband or wife
cannot be taken Mr.. O'C. read cases in support OF
his theory The rule is to avoid collision. and not
to shut out truth. The evidence attempted to be
given in the present case was made not more than
seven months ago. The defendant declared his IN
nccence in his answer, upon OATH and he put PLAIN
tiff upon proof. There was every appearance that
no COLLISION existed In a case IN Michle An defend
ants admissions. under certain circumstances, IN
case of cruelty, were admitted Mr.. oC. commended
that the testimony should be admitted. He did not
know what Mr. Wnltly would testify TO.
MIR. Van Buren, would admit that confessions as
shown by the book might be gwen under certain cir
cumstances, such as a deaih-bed confession. where
AL tn
confe Ssun and in two or three other cases where
confessions and proof agreed None OF the cases
apply 10 This The admissions, If any, spoken OF,
were made long after the commencement OF the SUIT
The plaintiff has set out long number Of charges,
Oh which bat little If any testimony has been given,
aud now they wish to come IN with some admission
made long after the suit
The Court thought the offer 10 prove by Mr.. Whit
ly that Mr. F. had confessed to visiting houses Of
ll-fane, was matter OF general inquiry and asked
10 be admitted as to the part OF the complaint which
speaks OF ersons unknown" Iflwas AZ liberty to set
tie the rule would say that in no case should admIs
sions be allowed but IT is my duty to see what has
been cone In other tribunals The four Judges oil the
Ecclesiastical Court acted without Jury. This pro-
ceeoIng is different, and may present question
The Jury are empannelled TO try according to evil
dence. The rules OF evidence at common law do
not apply to cases OF divorce. have moi been able
10 find that general confession OF adultery nas been
received and acted upon by any of the Judges. IL
might be received by the Judges. but weighed to see
If applicable. have not heard of any admission
There is strong reason In my mind why the testi-
mony should not so to the Jury III admitted, the
Jury will act upon II, and may nave estaohshed an
adultery way alluded to by the complaint. My
impression to the ipadmissibllity OF general adj
missions Is well founded That, think, Is all that
is necessary to say as to this ofer but II occasion
should offer pointing to specific acts, 1t may be
brought up.
Neil Gray was called by Mr.. O'Coner, in reference
to the time which Mr. + applied TO the Legislature
Of Pennsylvania for divorce, and whether he recoi-
lecied having taken the affidavit referred to yesteI
cay by Mr. Sedgwick. the object being as to resi-
dence. Took the affidavit but not acquainted with
any of It's contents.
Francis " D,ktrs, counsellor at law, was also
called as TO the petition, or appicaton-lmasine the
copy shown was rom an original, s'gned by Mr.
Forrest from the fact OF It's being so filled up IN my
hand cannot say that saw the original.
charles Cordit, counseilor-We to Harrisburg
10 get copy of the original from the records OF the
Legislature found paper In the Lower House, and
obtained the copy shown 1t is not the paper served
upon Mrs z, about the time 10Th Feb. 1850 OF the
petition being presented, dhe copy being Obtained in
Dec, 1882 went to Haulsburgh cannot say that
Mr. Forrest went there at the same time
CrOsS-erdmned-l am not acquainted with Mr..
Adams, one OF the Assistants OF the Clerk am not
acquainted with Neil Gray's Handwriting the orr
gnai paper purpofted to have Mr.. Forests hand
writing was different hand from the body cam
not say it was that of MIR +
Mr. OC. said 1t correspondent as to date, snd was
copy, except affidavit &c, OF the notice served
upon Mrs +. not received yesterday. he asked
tnat 1t be received in testimony.
Mr. Van B. objected. as the proof was no! Sliii-
ciont that II was copy OF Mr. rs petition. Inc
intention of the paper is that Mr + said IN 1t ne re-
moved to Philadelphia III December
The word copy is on the papers. Mr.. Condit
WAS called TO saw he does not recoect II the word
was on the paper at Hanisbufgh orhot. Found no
paIer OF the kind among the senate oocuGenis
Toere was minute Oh the record 0f such petit
ton having been presented.
Mr.. Van Buren, still further objected.
IL was said that notice had been given to produce
the original The Count thought II the original had
lot been sent Mr.. must have 1t, and could pro-
ouce IL. He thought that this or that testimony
OF It's beng copy suihclent.
An argument then arose AS to which paper could
be admitted. The Court considered that the notlce
to Mrs T. shown of The application for divorce,
should be considered as a copy from copy OF the
Original. The latter was read, under exceptions.
1t concludes by saving to Mrs + that the pc ston
for divorce will be presented to the Legislature 18TH
Feb. 1850, signed by Mr.. +.
The peiition was then read, which stated that
Mr. f was born in l6O6-that he resided IN New
York, but returned TO Pennsy lvanla and is rest
cent Of that place-then alludes to Mrs r and ASKS
for divorce.
Mr.. O'Conor said the case here rests on behalf Of
Mrs +.
The Court suggested the prcpreiy OF some ar
tangemeIt as TO calling witnesses.
Mir orc. SAID IN the opening some statements
ere made OF an intention to produce evidence not
bearing exactly upon this case but they are Wiling
that II should be admitted
MIR Vxn Buren did no, understand the idea Of the
CouI sci
The Court said only such testimony as belonged
70 the case could be admitted
MIR Van Ruren sand II was not usual for counsel
D object 10 testimony which has not been onered.
Christina Underwood, called by MI van buren ana
>worn-Reslde al No lis 10Th ST., am married >
was originally from scotland been IN TINS country
since 1887 acquainted with Mr.. ana Mrs Forrest ,
have be en- so win Mrs since Just before sue was
married was acquainted with her fatheI ana mo
iher her father was IN the Argyleshire militia sta
toned IN Aberdeen he played some instrument III
The bano, DO not know what ,-,
The Judge said they might take a. much oil such
testimony as they might &c ADVISED, ou1 ne shouid
put dow none but what belonged 10 Tue ctSe.
Vtfr,Ss-Came TO tins country WITH my mrs, nus
bsnc AID family his name vas Thomas 5edloiI
came before Mrs. Forrest left London IN June anu
arrived here IN August was not engageG IN .no n
at nv residence in d carriage, 10 rear s. an !
wished me 20 come up to them at VII LeggeIts, Ia
Washlpg,onpace It sss the first tune hai seen
NJ = they wished roe to take charge OF ahodse
in Readt st which Mr.. Z. had bought OF NJ HACK,