New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-12-27
THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE.
esthariDe N. Forrest rs Edwin Forrest-Ed-
win Forrest as. Cdthariae " Forrest.
SUPERIOR COURT-BETORE JUDGE OAKLEY.
NINTH Day.. FRIDAY, Dec 26.

win Forrest rs. Cdthariae " Forrest.
/ SUPERIOR COURT-BEToEE JUDGE OAKLEY.
1 NINTH DAY FRIDAY. Dec &c.
Cath0rlnc ". Forrest ACT. EdUn For
a. and Cross Charge Conhaacd
EebeTt DemuR called by MIR. Van Buren,, but no
,swcr, and Mr.. V. . asked for an attachment,
shch was granted. Mr. '. y. said as soon as the
Imcbment could be prepared he would like 10 have
tWrye0. lie would also CAL another witness,
rhom he understood there would have to be an at
1fmeLt for.
gHiqn N Smi'h.-Mr. ) was called, but not an
ssrInp an attachment was asked for and ordered.
Mr. Van Il. asked If this would not be convenient
,porunity TO settle the mater relation 20 Mr..
ISscr, and other such testimony.
The Judge asked what was the character Oi tae
ssnmony.
Mr. Van b said he wished to present evidence
ampTOpeT and lewd cOncuc. on the part OF MIS-. +.
xnh men not charged with adultery in this case.
Mr. orc said he md been IN the habit of trying
esss according TO Law. lie has been brought up
skWyoT under the dOc'fine Of The common law,
md he has thought Il proper 20 ny mea AMI women
MoOfdine to tue pf1ncl les Il the common Law.
rtere has been a great departure from 1t. III per-
nired it TO the FIRST witness, Dutdd no. suppose
tst strangers could lie bIOusht up. He was willing
1let those who knew Mrs f's daily walk, depend
" upon what would appear on crcss-examnation
stxpain. When Mr.. Lester was brought on the
sxbd with a flourish, whom he did not know, ne
sssed Mrs. +. rs to WHIT She knew OF hlm ne
A0ght II proper 10 conhne the testimony TO the
N.es, but they are willing 10 throw away the Scao-
bard, end Mrs. + may. on the other side, bring up
sech evidence. They VIII not object to the teSti.
ucny OF Mir Lester. He may object to witnesses
xhOm they DO not know, bu: M. l.. they knew all
bout
The Judge said he was not t. be controlled by the
oonsent, where witness 10 objected TO.
hr Lester was called, but not beng IN Court an
gmceT sent for him.
MI, Van h read the testimony Of John Greea-Re
ndes at Nashville Is pia}er now manager OF
Nashville Theaier Knew Nh +. "a years, ana MIS-
y since the year after she cane here the day be-
Nre the separation | dined with ar and Mrs r.
Jaw some things go on the cart she sad TINS IS Tue
ast time shall see that bust SAID, Oh God is 1t
rue then v hat have re ld Ia the papers as TO the
xparauon b" she saId u vas she SAID she only was
loblarne she knew she had hgh temper mr.. r.
iben came up: size sad WAS the only one that
sould effect a recon ciliatlon II would spoAe 60
M f. afterwsrd represented to MIR. +. tnat me
naerences ought to be reconci ed ne saiu thefe
were some things between husband and wiie that
opeht not to be spoken Of knows Mr.. Geo. w jan
eson. This was objected To Ia the orlelnai' MI
OF SAID he was wiling ~ admit u, as ne knew MI
O. 10 be a candid ana yeraclOuS witness. .
The fudge said the Jury would have TO decide
nik ca Sc upon legal evidence They should have to
40 so although testimony Is gwen thal Is MOI ooeoF
sdto.
Mr. Van % did not propose now to read the parts
hat had been objected 10
M O'C. wished he should read the other parts:
Depos,;ion-ThDk let New.orleans 1eioie MI
md Mrs + MIR Jameson was there, ana hau oeeh
actlnf win Mr.. L always heard from MI. JAMIE
son he went up the river win tnem inc ueHnle''
Of MI f. 10 ms wlie has been uulorm Nhahess al
seme,iut $ not for Two or thrCe years MI am MS
Rneyer witnessed Mrs Green and myself oul once.
Mr. orc thought there was lltte fragment 'uaI
sAould be read on the question Did you ever nave
sny cenyersation with George Roberts of Boston, AS
10 The difficulty between Nr ana MIS- f''
The dcpOsition answered not
Ehrord N Barr sworn--ReSi'e With my family al
No 100 Alleu.st AIN manufacturer OF Jewehy,
ern of Burr & Stevens, MIR SIS name Is ANDREW
Nevens; been acquainted with Mrs Forrest since
sAortly after New.lear cay ls1', Us near a. osn
,.nIt :. Tn
which was then No. ls9 Broadway she came
sAculd think, once or twice week, TIL ABOUT MAY,
spd after that more 1cquenty thhh aoou. ohOc ",
twice week before, but made no minute "l IL IL
sAould say three or four times a week IN tue SUN
uer of 1912 might so oeyon ana perhaps NOT COM
un IN II should say IT would average three or iout
times "A week-that Is, with the exception OF wheh
she was away from the city. which mighi De nVe OF
an weeks our Mace OF business is mandatory,
divided non Office we pave several men 20 Won
Ihad no employment for her 70 any Tune OF business
relations with the exception OF looking
her "a She was gong 10 Housekeeping thlnk II vas
las, of September or beginning OF October on Tue
occasions the subject Of conversation generaiy was
- To the difficulties WIN Mr anu rne u"I, nry
Mr. F. since lsi7 Mrs +. SAID the cause OF thclr
spar alton was a difference of opinion TINS WAS III
The tore part of the summer OF isis, sue uu no'
frst stale the cause of difference, DaI ater hti ~
turn from Massachusetts, she sand she never knew
woman have a more knd and ndu'Sen' museum
han Mr. f. had been up 10 the MGcready clitcuiIy
al that time 90 not know mai she continue" '"'
conversation any further
Q-Prior 10 trat had you heard any suggestion rs
10 that beng the cause OF cithcu.Iy' uoh any
quarter IL
MIR orc said one mOnen,, ~e object to that lie
objected that the question was not proper
The Court thought II a matter OF no cSnSe-
Qrence. the question might be answered
Mr.. O'C wished 10 put the question down.
W,tgsss-I had heard II, Ia read It in the public
mess that and conversations IN the puolc sWee'S,
b., 10 source could place any rehance upon, nov"
ever never heard from Nr Forrest the cause OF
the separation of his wife and himself never
heard him sneak OF the matter IN the most remo.e
manner ull within day or two OF Christmas, 1917,
TIE communication mace by Mrs. + 10 me, never
came 10 Mr.. + IS ears from me TIL last January VI
fore part OF February last -,
Q.-Was there any agency between you ana VII
stevens and MI Forrest A.,
Mr. OC objected, # the object Is IN prove 'hal Mr'
Stevens not an agent ana TINS "nesS eau '1 ,S
Il, the cue,tion may be allowed but not that the
witness does not know OF any agency ~ may ne
they would leave Mr.. :. out OF Court ana oiiHs MS
partner.
Mr. Van Buren, said they wished to sho" exactly
"a IL Was
The Judge said YOU cannot prove agency TIL some
act OF agency has been sho~n, hut there ms oeeh
none shown as to this witness. Mr.. Ssa5ehcy . a.
20 tie acts shown TO have been done.
Mr.. orc. would not object 10 The question
HUHesS-l know OF no acts Of agency o. ahV Nt'd
except that any acts of kiGdaeSs could DO for M
Forrest would do cheeriull,. We hid no business
conn eciiOns with Mr. Forrest, except tina, We nave
sold 70 HIM as 70 any other person coming in 10 buy
we had money relations have paid out money for
Mr. T. had an open account between M +. and
ourselves he has loaned ne money he has loaned
rue ~ high as $500 that is loaned the hrm do not
know the state of the account there may be A bat
ance Que him | have no, l0okea over the account
In the conversation with Mrs. f. she onen spoke Of
the custom Of society compelling married pefsons
90 live together where there was no affection De-
tween them IN one OF the conversations IN SPEAK
Ing OF Tins matter she SAID il would be great deal
better 10 separate as they had doue-tobe competed
to hive together was Only "a iegalzed prosntutoa,
which though. myself that was her expression, II
was the early part of 1919 being compelled 10 iseto-
geiher, she said, when there was no affection. was
nothag more nor less than a legahzed prostitution,