The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1851-07-10
The Coddington, Webb and WilHs Ana ir

In the Supreme Court, New York, on June 80
James Watson Webb, accompanied by his counsel
Hiram Ketcham, appeared before and delivered o
Judge Vanderpoe, referee, in terms of the order Of
court to that effect, The famous package of letters
written by Mary Inman (now Mrs. Coddington)
| to Mr.. Willis, and handed by Mr. Willis to Mr..
Webb, in presence of George Buckham, in the
year 1874.
The delivery of the letters was accompanied BY
| n long statement by Mr.. Webb, which he said he
awaited himself of The opportunity 10 put on record
| IN making surrender Of the papers, 10 correct
interpretations that had been circulated as TO
| the manner IN which they came INFO hi possession
| Mr.. Clark, counsel for Smith Coddin ton and
his wife, had no obec tion 10 receive W. bis long
statement as an explanation, hut insisted that each
| question and answer should be put down separ.
attly.
The invesl igation affords no pleasure in the per
| 'isal. Y he only satisfactory thing connected wi h
1t Is, that Webb delivered up the l-ters accom-.
pan'd with The statement, on oath, that these six
not-s. or letters were all that Mr.. Willis had
| handed to him, and that he had made no copies uf
them, or any OF ihsm except such a, he describe d
10 the Referee. These copies, far no, al eay
Destroyed may be reached by an order of the
court. Webb swore very particularly, as this
| much seemed necessary to sustain his character as
gallant eenteman-that previous TO the 18Th Of
May last The day of his d. a h-aming assault in
his paper on Willis) he had never shown the.e
ttters to any human being, and never copied, o.
suffered to he copied, any part Of them.
His affidavit further admitted, that since l5tt
May he had shown these letters, paris of them
TO at least three persons outside Of his family al,
his ofiice-to two persons in his family, and rhr,,
persons in his Office or the three re sons outsid
of his Office 10 whom he had exhibited Ihem, wv
were clergymen, but 'houg,i he Referee insisted OF
his naming these cergyu en-, Webb conlumaciuu l.
deciued. On his showing this coniumacy, tn
Ref rec broke up the proceedings.
Now ihaT the letters have p used out of Webh'
hands, with his affidavit that no copies of Who'll
or part OF any of them have been retained tn
most odious feature in this proceedings man Re
tam ng the private letters of lady, when the
had b. en- put in his hands for surrender to her
has been abolished. The purpose OF Mr.. and Mrs
Cojdington's suit will never he aecomp ished if
aimed to prevent Webb exhibiting tue letters, as
whether he may be compelled by the court 4
name the clergy men TO whom he showed them o
not, it Is clear III t, nearly six weeks before h
made this affidavit and surrendered The letters, h.
had shown them to three persons in his Office, tw
persons in his family, and three persons not at
tached to either establishments.
When it is surmised how many persons he ha
apprised of the OF these letters besides III
Numbers who have had the assurance from Gle, SO
men and others, that they had sern lem, it woul
seem scarcely necessary to st5f The txhbtion O
tue circulation. They have a'raajy gone ia
enough for all purpoes of well au,hent ca ed scan
dal, and have undergone misconsiruc. ion and mis-