New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-06-20


cause Why an attachment should not Issue f1T Eola-
TOR OF Injunction - letter, alleged 70 have been
written Oy Ar>. C01dingiOn % M. y =. Willis Dre-
NOUS 20 neE marriage, and minded by latter o. Col
II ISL already referred o. also f0r plaintiff, 90
show cause Why the Greer app0 tIng receiver should
not be set ASIDE and also - the prOpueiy ~ aD
pointing receiver. were argued. Mr. Horace +.
Clark appearing Tor ". AMI Mrs {. AMI Nr. Hiram
hetchum for Col. W, who was present
MI Oiark alluded 10 and stated the original COM
plant that Mrs { previous 60 her marriage. and While
yel very young, had written letters 30 Mr. Willis.
when were innocent IN themselves but might be-
capable Of msConsUcton that tOl W. ana NJ
Buckham were requested by her father. previous 70
hls Geath 70 get them and that they were delivered
IN q sealed package 20 Col W By Mr. Willis in be-
half OF her fahcr-thai COL. W-dId not deliver them
and has omitted 10 DO Snce-tha; SAID letters have
recently ueen noticed III a newspaper controversy.
and an offer made by Col " 20 place them IN third
hands-and She asked for an injunction restraining
Col W from publishing. exposing or making cOpic,
iany OF SAID letters. and that They're handed 70 Col
Warner receiver.
The argument was heard before Judge Sanifori.
Judges Duer and Campbell beng also. as advisory.
on The bench
Mr.. CLARK read an affidavit setting forth hat the in-
junction had been allowed and was served upon Col
W. yet Col. W. inserted some OF sad letters IN an
affidavit which he read 20 this Court. thereby eN-
posing sad letters, thai said aidaviS were published
in Col. vs. paper next morning under me mead OF
legal nelIgence-leavlng Out the letters but refer
ing 10 them as having been written IN female hand
10 Nj Withstand in which she spoke of having been
VII Of Col. w saving II The letters written by Mrs.
{. then Miss lnman 10 Mr. Willis. were OF the char
acter referred 10 IN The complaint. then these were
not her letters
contempt Of Court for violating the mjuctlon he can
not come in with the motion 20 open the default Mr..
& commended that these letters solely the pro-
perry of Mrs Coddngon, and he could not but be
struck by "A remark she made when he Informed her
that an offer had been made Dy Col w. 10 place The
letters IN possession Of the Court, she inquired what
night would the Court have 10 read her letters. Mr.
G. referred 70 the fact that these letters were handed
TO Col W. IN lSi5-hc stated m the article m his pa
per in which he first referred 10 Mr. W having Sc
duced the daughter of friend of his that there were
letters IN his possession written by her 10 Mr Willis.
that were of such character that any one but the
most unpTIncpled hbertne WOnld have consigned To
the fire soon a. he got them. Col w hal these
letters 1875 has read thCm and The term ne used to-
ward Mr. W. IN consequence, would apply 10 himself.
But the probability L. he did not open that package
until 1851, when he used u, from malice or revenge.
against Mr. Willis, whom he supposed had done MN
injury In relation 10 handing the letters 10 inc
Court. or 20 anv individuals, n would be OF no ser
wee, for no honorable man would read them. Iheb
are the property Of Mrs. {. Col. Webb, on their
being handed to hm by Mr. Willis, SAID he was an
thorzed by Mrs { 10 get them on her behalf By
inserting a portion OF these letters as part of ms
affidavit, and reading them publicly ln the Court
room. and alludng to them next day m his paper,
and stating what he SAID was the substance of the
letters. he violated the injunction. Mr. c. was en-
phatlC that no person whatever had right 10 read
the letters The alleged cause OF wish now that
they should be preserved Is that they may be used IN
the event OF suli for libel by MI W. against Col
Webb but Col W. has no night 20 do So sui
plaintiffs when they know the letters are IN safe
keeping. VIII not be against their beng kept and
not destroyed, for reasonable length of time. Mr.
C. cited authorities TO show that letters written by
party are their property. given uf 20 them or their
agent by the person 20 whom they were written
and that person to whom letters are written cannot
publish them without the writer's consent. lie
spoke for some time contcndmg That the injunction
had been violated and that the motion 20 open de-
fault cannot be entertained He was urgent on the
point both as TO honor and morality that no person
had night 10 read or retain the letters Tor NM
self he had not read them, nor would be read them.
Previous 10 Nh Clarke offering In, remarks, Mr..
Kelchum. for Col w, also read an affidavit setting
Injunction had not been served upon hun, but A copy
and that appendine the letters 10 the aiav WaS "a
show the Court that they were not the same deScrp
ton as those claimed by plaintiffs
In ms affidavit Col ". stated that be received
sealed package directed Col Webb but he ncvcrre-
ceiyed said letters. or held them under any trust.
express or implied rendering u improper for HIM 10
read thcm-that long ago he expressed a desire 20
Mr. Buckham that The letter, should be sent TO Mrs
c. but Mr. b. opposed the sending OF them lest they
should fau INTO the hands of her husband.
Mr. kctchum. iu reply 20 Nr Clark, ,uf the gen
teman had favored the Court with gOOt deal of
poetry. but We do not come here for poetry nor chE-
airy. We come here IN the exercise of legal rights
and the Court will be- actuttct in that respect
In relation 10 the default. Col Webb, not az the
time having counsel, mistaken as 10 the time 90
show cause. and the gentleman on the other side has
acknowledged that anyperson but lawyermghl De
easily deceived As respects the alleged violation
for Injunction be- had night 20 present 20 The Court
proof that the letters were not such had been
claimed I'm relation 10 TINS matter tOl. w. made no
intimation whatever m the article ln hls paper oy
which n could be known that Mrs toddlngton was
the party referred iOnor naS Il uil me publication
of Mr. Willis TWO days Afterwards, n which no aAu-
dee 10 her. that public attention va, attracted
towards Mrs &. Col W. has never stated 20 any
uerson the transaction IN relation to the eier,-and
he Is now de>ITOus 90 have TINS matter stop Wnerc u
is rather than add 90 s publicity, and with thtt feel
mghas iOrbonc putting n an answer 20 inc com
As regards eticr> beng 50 private that no persons
can read them, consider t SAID Mr. n lhe duty
of this Court IN cases where justice 10 partle, re-
cure IT, that they should read them. II j. said oy
plaintiff, that these letters are of certain descrp-
fon-we say they of "A different description and
II is for the Court, 10 Us official pO,uon 10 examine
and decide IN regard % them We again offer 20
place them in the hands of the Court. We nave no
desire 10 keep the letters, only wish that they may
Re someW here. II DID safety.
The latter shad a right 10 speak as he dld. sup
nose Mr. Willis were % be a candidate Tor Judge
ship Oh the bench, and any cillen Ane" aim 10 Oe
guilty Of what was alleged, would % not De ms duiy
10 sneak 30 too ID the character OF the editor OF
new spaper. as Mr. Willis IS HIS writings are re-
celved INTO our families, placed .n ,he nand, o. our
wives and daughters and % De Is man not worthy
i should be- known
As relates 20 these letters they were not received
bv Col Webb on behalf Ol Mrs COddlngtOn. Jui On
tcaaf of her faher-ind they belong ms estate, o
winch Mrs. lnman is admlnls-rt'rN, ana me clam u
any should BE- by her.
Nr h cited cases, particularly tecl>ion OF 1Ian-
ceIior Walworth in Tire ise Ol Hoyt AT. Ncheuze.
to show tl. unless here Is property or ptcuMay
value Ia ...rsa Court OF Equity cannot interfere.
hy irIun 10 restrain their publication. He also
cited cas- show 10 is necessary tO exhibit iAe org
nal ordt WING notice OF an injunction
Mrk addressed the Court at con-ideraJic
length ldges allulng 90 points and maaiug
>uel. during the argument Judge saldiori
aid t Court did not receive such papers. olt tney
are sometimes deposited wiki the ClefH ana -t ll-
fcr,1ood he counsel for defense thai they would 0e
wiling 10 have these letters deposited WITH tle
CLERK Mr. Ketclum replied that they would -
very willing 20 fo so-and col Webb SAID toai 10
willing 20 place them with me 'eIA' or ne osli
tterq amin AIes>r, Ke,chum and Clara with "a ,lir4
party NOT Col Wamer go BE- appointed by Nt> Coz
diuglOn