The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-06-20
THE WEBB AND WILLIS CASE.
Superior Court-Generul Term,

I 50 Tor argu.
to set aside the default Second motion on behalf of
the plaintiffs for the defendant to show why
tachment should not issue against him for contm mpt
And third, If the default IL set aside. motion as to
whether receiver should be appointed not
The parties in attendance at ten O'Clock before
the arrival OF Judges Ssndford and Duer, but Judge
Campbell said he had been speaking the Chief Jusce
and they had to the conclusion that there would
be manifest impropriety in his Judge Campbel) in
terfeng In the in the absence Of Judge Sanford
who granted the injunction
II was then agreed that the parties should wait until
Judge Sandford came to the General Term. at eleven
tered the Court Other having given way this case
| was proceeded with before the three Judges
MT Hiram ketcham counsel on behalf Of the de-
fendant sad there two motions be heard in this
case, and probably there would be third The first
motion is to set aside the default and that should be
receiver should not be appointed The other is motion
for an attachment and he submitted that all should be
Mr. H. y Clark counsel for tho plaintiffs claimed that
the motion for attachment should bc heard first as the
oeiendant mas been guilty Of contempt, he Is not in
The Court decided, on hearing all three motions to-
get and said II WAS very little which
Mr. Ketchsm then in his motion to sct aside the de-
iauit proceeded to read some aidsvts Of Col Webb
J. WATSON wEBB's AFFIDAVIT.
CITY and County Of Ne,o York. IS :-James Watson
webb the above defendant, upon being duly sworn de-
poses and Gays that he served the original
injunction in this cause if auy such granted
nor certified copy thereof has he any knowledge
that any such injunction granted by this on
ported copy thereof bcponent further saith that
he hath been informed and believes that letters ad
mnistraton the personal estate of Henry human have
been granted by the Surrogate Of New York Jane
man widow OF Henry. And deponent further saith that
at the time OF his appearing before the honorable Court
ON the 9Th day of June inst to ask the Court to set
aside default taken against him in this cause he had
not taken legal advice that, while he perfectly under
STOOD rom the copy of the alleged injunction that
was prohibited from publishing showing or making
known the contents Of letters written by Mary to
Willis, yet he could not know and not believe
him TO read to this Court the affidavit containing copy
entire letter and AN extract from another letter
which not such letters are described in the com
plan and which therefore he has certain knowledge
the letters which the prayer of the complaint led
in this asks to have delivered the plaintiffs in
said cause and that deponent received intimstion
FRI IN the Court until after be had he whole of said
copy letter. and about reading extract from ano
thtr letter that the reading thereof was in violation of
raid injunction. j. WATSON WEBB.
Anderson, Commissioner Of Deeds.
Counsel then said that on this affidavit order was
obtained nom Judge Duer, for the plaintiffs to show
cause why the default should not be set aside
Mr. Cark-That the affidavit Of Col Webb did not
show sufficient for his not having attended in court on
the 9th June and that Col Webb being in contempt is
not in condition To be heard Mr. Clark then read the
following affidavit made By himself in the
MR. cI.ARK's AFFIDAVIT
CITY and County Of Nec York ss-Horace Z. Clark Of
Paid city being duly doth depose and say that he
- counsel for the plaintiffs In this action That the
eleventh day Of june instant this deponent attended
before the Honorable Aaron vanderpoel, (wh, ap
pointed referee in this action by the this Court
made co the sxth instantly upon the summons duly i
sued by the said referee and the defendant
persorslly That Andrew Warner. Esquire who was ap
pointed receiver in and by said order also attended
fad referee n obe6ence to the sum nous of the
tad referee. That Hiram Kechsm, Esquire, attorney
for the defendant appeared before said referee, unat
tended ty said dendan and exhibited to said referee
the order by his Judge Duer on tho eleventh
OF June instant the proceedings under order
ssid order thereby Suspended. Aud this deponent
further that the issued by said refcre-
requiring the attendance of aid defendant him
YsCp ygrO of he nnfe iefter
correspondence and papers mentioned in the complaint
~ ahs action was serv'd personally upon the said de-
ninth day Of June instant appears by the aiavt OF
such service hereto annexed. And deponent furthe
ssys that copy o the order made by his Honor Judge
nucr, on the eleventh instant served deponent
unti some hours after the meeting before said referee
but the original of sad order exhibited 60 this de-
ponen while deponent aitensing before said referee
And this Opponent further that Ii Is not true that
procurement Of Nathaniel p wils nor for any purpose
q justification OF said Wills And this a-pon.nt fur |
ther ssys that annexed hereto, and marked schedule
IL extract from the Morning Courier and nelr York Fir
g'rT ~ the tenth day of June instant ~ whch
paper the defendant editor proprietor both And
this deponent that he IL informed and believes that
the ninth day Of june instant the James Wat
Webb appeared in Court before his Honor Judge
sandfod aud read before said Judge a sv of which
copy IL embodied In the said wspa per
hereto mark I'd schedule A. and In addition
pubh.d adsyit read certain passages. alleged by .si
d,ndsr 20 have been taken from the letters delivered
by said is to the said defendant In the presence
George Buclhnm in OF about the month of june one
thou and eight hundred and forty five That his Honor
judge SANFORD interrupted the reading ~ the extracts
from sd letters intimatng that the course pursued by
the said dcfs ndsDt In pect thereof In violation
The Injunction OF this Court And further this deponent
Faith not. Sworn. sc, ~ " CLARK
lie then read the nfiaavit Of wrs Cod,i,Dg,on
MRS. copDiaGros's AFFIDAVIT
fiy and County u fetr York. ss.-Mary Coddngton
a village of sbwsy in the State Of New Jersey be-
ing duly sworn doth depoc and say she one Of
the plaintiffs in this action And this d~poneut further
tays that shs Is informed and believes thai the defendant
in this action in violation 81 the order of Injunction
de- on Nay nf fuafa fhp
h day q June 1851 In the where this Court
Is held and In the Of the lion Lewis u Sand
ford John Duer and William W Cssr bill three of the
justices o this Court and Of divers other persons there
ass,mhlcd publicly read sloud certain silavt relative
TO this action which affidavit purprried to contain
cory of extracts FROM the letters writ.
ten BY this d.ponent to Nathaniel r. Willie, mentioned
In the mrsint In this action and In the said order Of
injunction snd that hereunto annexed l. copy of 90
much of the said affidavit has 10 the knowe ige
oi this dpons aud that this deponcu IL also informed
ard believes that The said defendant has caused the por
tion q the said sfsdsv q which copy Is hevrto
nexed TO BE- published in several ~ the daily newspapers
in the city q New York And further. this drponcnt
saith not sworn. Sc. MARY 1 CODDINGTON.
Court-Thst 1, the foundation for the motion for at
tscbncn,
Mr. Clark replied in the affirmative. and read the In
junction, which had been granted by Judge San dord
and which las already been published This injunction
served on the defendant tho fourth June lie
would read some extracts from the Cpurer and En-
o,,,sy AZ which Col webb i the editor and proprietnr
end fer which he (Nr 60 concluded he answerabe
Counso then read the repert q the proceedings in this
court, as published in the Cosri ond Engrr and also
only prohibits the public ,ion of the letters but prohi
hits the exposition Of n sir contents Col webb in
biz adav that he viii cheerfulJ 10 the prop
titon TO place the correspondence The hsuds of
person The plsntifs application for receiver las
been made and granted and yet the defen refuse o
do The conclu4l 4lng part Of Col wcbb's ahdsy!t
shows that he nothing who Ee possession Of t3c.
nov tbst their conisrts are known
The Court rrmsakra that would be better 10 hear
the whole a the hdnvs in the before the ssgu-
mcnt ccmmcaced.
Sir clark sss a. tho original afsjavits were no,
knuwn 60 any members ofhe court, except Judge sspd
ford. he would read them
The Court fntimated that they bad sll rcad them,
whtrupon Nr Clark preceded 10 give brf outline -
the lie said that when Mary Inman \ mere girl
scarcely sixteen years of there srpcarc IN paper
n which n. 7. Wiis was tha editor article stating
that she was the suthorras q book tacn rpbhed
Jpon seeing this she addressed communication te Mr
i Ne replied 60 her note and acurrrspopt ptencs
nued between tht IN which knswn 10 the paseats
of bliss lfman Sbe then. In ls4, but 10 ypaTa Of