New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-12-31


esen admitting that letter from Mr.. J. Was IN pos
session of Mrs. T., yet there is no evidence TO SHOW
hat this was the precise letter, and cannot, there
fore, De acmted In testimony. AS 20 the party writ
pg, he cannot be compelled 20 come here, and 1t
vas doubtful II We should have been put 20 the ne
eessliy 10 get MS testimony, to &c; commission
There Is no evidence that The letter IS by male to
female. lie withed 20 show by Mr. Goodwin that
Consueio is female and one olthe highest chastity,
snd one SO regsrcful o. those about her, that the
title sgnibes copsolation. The counsel took objec-
uon TO such testimony, as being irrelevant, as there
vas not line in the letter when was Consuelo and
he Court considered. The fact that the Consuelo
Of the novel was the last that any one could ap-
proseh regard to the purity OF her character was
relevant The terms OF high respect and love il you
rlease, II such is In the letter. showed the high adm
SatOa the party entertained for the person written
70. Even anorops language, If you please some
times In prayer, is addressed to those in regard to
hose who cannot be questioned as 10 purity II Mr.
had the power TO draw forth from his pocket some
letter written by Jameson, which had COnsuelo upon
II, procured perhaps from Jameson himself, ana
charge Mrs. i in regard 10 IL, she would never De
safe, and IT might be brought against her for years
after that conversation. ,
Mr. orc referred 20 the fact that for four months
Mr. aud Mrs. +. lived together when there were
penty of spare beds In the house, and II was Known
or said, they were about 10 separate ne contended
that they lived as man and wife; BESIDES whlcn Mr..
T. introduced her TO respectable family, ana gave
her what may be considered, perhaps, his B0le-his
Shakspere-eDd also gave her bis portrait and pre-
served hers. We have thls IRON Mrs: UNDERWOOD,
Mr. f. permitted letter to be written to Mrs. F.'s
fsther, saying she was above repfoach. He broke
o. Housekeeping, wealthy gentleman, and sent his
wife &c board he said there was no fault on her
part and may II not be supposed that there was
iOme on hStbat his affections bad got fastened on
mother lady, or something of the.Sind He tired to
keep down her allowance 10 but $500 year at first
ten months afterward he charged improperly in re-
gard TO her. Nh Burr has said that Mrs F.. said that
i was Ia consequence OF the Macready affair. II
might have been Of great advantage TO Mr. T. to say
4havl had hp
against her was an after-thought. The Court
will not allow that after woman has been allowed
70 live respectfully and ten months ai.erward turn
round and say: "Oh have got letter which was
written 10 GU by Jameson 1t VIII be Tecolected
when be first started his charges, he had no capital
but this letter long afterward Robert Garyen was
brought IA, last, though not least John Kent The
whole course OF Mr. F's conduct calls upon her to
rpish the best evidence as 10 this letter. IL he had
the letter, why not complain IN Dec, 1919! Is 1t not
10 be supposed he had no testimony Ia hs possession
Every presumption is against hun. Even If he had
the letter his silence shows ho dd not consider 1t
any evidence against her. Mr.. J. could have been
placed on the stand, or by commission, and although
be could not be compelled to prove anything against
himself, but he would have TO say whether ne wrote
the letter or not. called Mr.. Forrest TO the stand,
and WAS willing to take all he would offer they
could have done the same TO Mr.. Jameson. He con-
tended n could not be shown.
The Count said all the evidence as to Mr.. having
the letter, on the former argument, was what Mrs
Under wood stated that Mrs L. came into the room,
from her sister and foolish one written by Jameson,
which she Old not wish him TO There wasnoth-
ing To show that this was the letter, or that 1t was
letter, or directed TO any one Mr.. F., on offering
II for testimony IS bound to prove that Is the letter
] would not intimate that he would get letter from
Mr. j., but the Court must guard against the door
being open TO admit such testimony as THIS Any
thng that Mr.. j. might write could not affect Mrs f.
no woman could be safe The only way to show
against her would he to show that she received and
kept the letterthen, with other proof to adultery
FQrha 10 m adj
more. II would then be TO look at the character OF
the letter IL may have been Innocent letter, and
a woman IN receiving "a letter might act with proper
motives and yet not state 10 her husband or destroy
1t, though avoiding the party again. The best tesu-
mony must be brought up to allow letter on that
ground.
abe conduct of MIR. Jameson. But 1t is not ad-
dressed Ia Mrs Forrest or any other person. Mr.
Godwlhs testimony Is orousnt np TO show that .nis
50 called, II may be innocent, or 1t may be OF the
character charged In this Ii would he the easiest
thing the world for Mr. Jameson 10 write this et
ter, and Mr. Forrest TO get ", and the ease with
which tins thing might Ee done is apparent Mr.
Forrest oDly stands III tho position oil any otner per
son having paper not sufficiently proved, To be
read. cannon permit the paper (the Consuelo let
teri to be given IN evidence.
Mr.. Van Buren, entered exceptions
MI Van then offe ed To give IA evidence an at
fdavIt OF Mr. Forrest, charging Mrs i. with receiv-
ing the letter, wilhmpropcr conduct nfegmdt To him,
also that the letter received IN Mdyand kept TIL
December, and she admits, under oath, THAI 1t was So
The letter contained in tho affidavit and may
partly read ". There was "a ietter sent rom Mr..
Fonestto Mrs. Forrest. changing hsr with impfopu-
ETY. In regard 10 the let en- and subsequent letter,
and i'll heI reply she did not assert her innocence but
denled that 10 contents showed Improperly We
have called upcn the counsel On the Other sideto pro-
6uce The letter
Mr orc canied such letters As to those written
10 Ms j they would produce them, but do not
want ~ dt pr,vc the counsel of Mr.. Stevens on
the !staId. We are much Obliged 70 then for put
ting Mr.. Lawson or the stand. and hope they Will
Mr.. SIeSebS-land Mr. Jameson, said Mr.. van J.
yes, MI. Jameson, too II the Counsel says so, but
be says he is poor creature, and should think ne
was so nom some recent matters, and too poor 10
entertain, the idea that he could approach the lady
as had been SAID he cid RJ. orc. denied that the
sfiosvits could De read He would be willing that
he should read that of Mrs. Forrest, and read the
whole OF Il.
MI. Van H. said he desired to go according TO rule
to read Mrs FPS affidavit first would be reading
reply without statement, and WOnld not &c ihtelii-
siblo. lie only wished to read Mr.. 80 aindaVit IN
order to give The submissions 81 silence oi MIS- L. III
reply - 10 reading the whole OF an affidavit, 1t Is
not necessary.
Nj orc said an affidavit was sent by Mr.. Forrest
tohIs counsel III the mOilOn rs Ia injunction, ana tue
answer merely replied To the paris that were mate
rial 1; would not BE proper 10 read tae whole oil
The unanS cred part % the affidavit OF Mr.. L. AS
to reacing yhe whole Of paper, It is neces Aty-a
gNbled pant cannot be taken ia evidence, Mr. OC'
SAID the affidavit of Mrs. I. would De found 10 be
yeD nteilieibie. There are Gases IN thancery
where answer in another case max ne read. Inc
counsel has a right 10 read Mrs. F.s atidayit but
not Mr.. rs.
The Courl though, they could read Mrs, Forests
AFFIDAVIT, aud such parts OF the oiner aihdaVit as 10
explain Il but this Is broader TO sho~ not only the
letter but inpro<iety and also contents partly OF
her sisters letters. How Gar an affidavit that has
been served upon party ana an affidavit also served
In reply, aud the parties nave had 1hem, 1T ques
ton as To uow far they can be ADMITTED Ia feSh-
mony. ltls now near the hour OF a lournment, and
will reserve the part I'll To morrow
Mr orc said the aihtA,itS were not replies 20
MI Forrest, but MADE 10 The Court. There Is dis
tnctoR between lntsd0cuIory proceedings ami bill
and aBswer
M Van q. said where any reason WAS given for
neglectng u Suswer on referring 10 another paper,
that shows why no denial was MADE
In answeTt0 question OF tae Judge, Ny. O'C.
ssld the afidaytS were made on m0lpn 10 dissolve
injunction aS to the Pennsylvania charges. the
Cour, took the afiicayitS. Adjourned 10 this fore