The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-06-20

her parents charge Of this kind aew with the swift
ness OF ruInor and Mrs Coddington became generally
known ns the person alluded to- for all knew that Colo
mel Webb had been the intimate friend Of her father
beeane known in the village where she lived and he was
graphs; and she therefore determined 90 bring to
justice the man who had violated Rer fathers
confidence snd her own After the publication of that
article BY Col Webb, Mr. Willis published card refer
ring to Mrs Coddington speaking of her az the mo-
her Of several children residing in neighborirs viii
age, and this too fastened the identity on her The
subject became the subject Of newspaper discussion and
Col Webb proposed to refer the to third per
SON. and she was thus to be tried in her ABSENCE
have the charge promulgated against her in newspaper
report without hearing being afforded her IT was
then she made the motion in this court After the let
tiers had served every purpose of Col Webb after he
made them the foundation Of charges against his
and the means Of caumny against ths daughter of hs
deceased friend he consents to give the third
party.
The Court suggested that Mr. Kctcham should read
the other affidavit in the case before the argument pro-
Mr. ketcham then proceeded to read an affidavit of
Col Webb stating that he had not been duly served
with the original Of the order
Mr.. Clark admitted that the original was not served
on the ath June but the order the 9Th
Court-I!sve you served any affidavit Of the service of
Mr. Ketcham-Thcre Is none
court-If there bad been, il would be no foundation
Tor an attachment for contempt for act previously
done Wewiil hear any other afiidavts Of Col Webb.
Mr hetcbaH then read the following
AFFIDAVIT OF JAMES WATSON WEBB
tuy and County Of Nete Fork, ss--Iames Watson
poses and says that he did publish fifteenth day of
hsy last article set forth in the complaint filed in hi;
cause headed The london Times the Day Book and the
Home Jnn7oi' That IL wac reply to article in the
london Times, containing violent personal attack upon
his deponent editor Of American newspaper
also upon the American newspaper press That the
thority upon which this attack was contained
in the newspaper called the ker York Day Book and
article published in the newspaper called the HON,
.o,Gnci sited by Nathaniel Willis and signed with
his initials And Of the objects Of said deponent
TO ct forth TIE true character of said Willis to show
q hath 49,
no weight consideration authority especially in
state ments he might make against deponent towards
whom he fee ngs of bitter hostility Accord
inely in said article deponent did publish and make
known 10 the world that said Willis, being at the time
married man had ssduce very young girl the dsugh
tr OF highly respectable parents and deponent
erates sad charge and processes his entire Willingness
10 meet amy investigation into the truth of the same
which aid Willis may see fit to institute In court of
justice But deponent had any wish intention
aud by said publication to indicate in way the fe
male whom said Willis seduoed, did he do so did
he know or suppose that any facts publicly known
which would induce suspicious that said Mary Cod.
dipgon or other female in particular referred
IN faid published article Nor does he nov believe that
nom anything contained in raid article the identity Of
the female referred to therein would have been srmed
But within two days after the publication of said article
that being on Thursday MAY 10y article purporting
to b. reply thereto published in the New York
IE1ad. signed by said Willis This article appeared
hs morning of Saturday 7th May In this reply of
said Willis he dees not fit to make simple denial OF
the charge against him but states that five six
years before he had corresponded with young school
.
husband and children in a neghborng State She
child he ssys, of great deal Of irregular genius she
ahcfwud went to EUROPE, and returned With the clues
thu frrrihed by n i. Willis IL would not be strange
that public curiosity should take specific direction
and that suspicion should attach to the person supposed
to be the female scduced. and that the said Willis
rbo uid escape public oJium by introducing lady.
wife ana mother. TO claim public sympathy D.ponept
bas not the lady her identity has been ndica
ted by Nathaniel u. Willis in manner aforesaid aud de
poncnt made her unwilling and reluctant adversary in
IA sut At law Nor has opponent alleged nsnuated
to In her complaint filed in this Mrs Coddngton
that within two days after the publication in the
city OF New York cf said article several Of the friend
~ the plaintiff came TO them ut their In the
village a Hallway and spoke of ssid publication rs
the publication OF esid Willis purportng to b. her
reply, appeared in the New York Morning Hrois
Opponent further saith th, several years ago he did
r,ve rcn Nathaniel Il. wias ksl, in the presence cf
George Buckmab- Esq sealed parcel addressed the
ruttide thereof Col Webb which parcel contained
irponcnt Understood from said Wills letters written
him by Miss Mary Inman. daughter OF Henry Inman
Eel friend of Opponent deceased. but depon.ns
ss no evidence that these letters written by said
Mary lnman other than the fact that they deli
sercd TO him by said Willis letters written by siid
Mary, and Gcpt to him. That receiving the said
pare, addressed 70 him he opened The same and readthe
letters conceiyin he had perfect legal and moral right
10 do 50 Dtponcnt expressly declares that he
revcd said letters, held the under any
sprees implied rendering improJ for him to read
The same; that reithcr of said plaintiffs present
when ssd letters delivered 20 deponen aud Il IL
Therefore impossible for them either them
of their ov knowlon under what conditions, rrsir.
ions or limitations deponent received the that
sd cters have remained in the possession undrrtno
contrul of dspouent from the time Of receiving tn.
aforesaid, to the prcsvn. moment; and that de-
uent hath never spok of tham 10 any person the
rers 81 Mary lnan nor hath he ever spoken 81 them
any way To the prejudice Of said Mary and long ngo
he espcsted desire to paid Backham that sad letters
houll he cent TO snid Mary but the said Buckhsm OPP
rossd the scDdng of them fpr fear, he salt they
should fall into the hands Of tae husband Of said Mary
Opponent furth r saith that he understands the
paint In this sse tn speak ~ and refer to such letters
a " wer ffay.E Ev Murv IN Natl thsn naaip
iis, ard thee letters the said complaint rrnys 10
hsvc delivered Up TO said Plaintiffs Dep1nent hasno
knowledge that the etter n his possession Hretuchlet
other than he has bsre stated That lid Mary
mikes oath In hnr complaint. deponcnt understands
~ that the wife 81 said Wills was the
tents % ths letters written by her 60 hirn an that
aid Mary did not imagine that her spondencs
With sad willis, r.fsssx to the corresrsndenoe ct
" hich ssii letters congo part could in amp
be- made foundation for censure or reprosoh That
uming ihe Il nth - a part of said comp lintin was
The ohsiacer q the lsters actually written by si
Msry TO sai Willis ) described dcponent verify bcryss
ths impartial uplps he positively zntw the Fs
would ssy TINT the .esrs In the hsnJs OF isponsut
those sctusly wrian by said Mary and which, sh- aud
her bvsbsnd pray In ssid complaint may be dsycrrd
up TO abtm Dere9sDt believes that the Court esxztn
any way form anssalie Judgment on Ibis po, by
an irspection asa psrssal q the letters temssssys held
w opponent and he pectfuly requests the Cart to
real the sane aaa fSr this purpose nov ors th-m 70
the Court In TIE envelope and IN tho al.
, WATSON wgBB
sern 70 beforS me- HsSm IL AsDsSsas, cossAission.r
Cour-Tt, dssrnisnt docs not dsay that shs cxry.rY,
Which be s'nnpted TO rad before nlse >@safsd
from these lttters
Nlr kcsShana-IIe dos not TIE counsel the caser
side las Tu2d extracts from agtiale. which he -
points 10 ths sdy In to hat he tMr keteA. NJ
would rai an extract from tbs same article az isc
then Tts1 the conclu ding part 81 the alsiavit
Mr. tle1k then, In CONN lncipg 70 open the fArgu
M NJ in each 81 the moi3ns, would ask how N ths
stn ana of facts made by tAa paiat1 hal becn varied
~ he saasvit on the otleT sde Phe defend, mt
whrc u ee that he rrceiv r these iettsrs IN rw e
d'Evaysl 90 Miss Inmsnp father lie (Mr Cb .rk) had
rad The original siiiavit ~ Col Wsbo.
Mr. kstchamNe oiTs rvd 10 place them In he 'Eards
u l0ege Dutr before All here oaer the m 10 this
ccsRt nov (pr,~enting he letters 10 the court
t-r tlsik presumed slat the court nor m hcnorable
nan would rstsivc than.
The CourtCourtt sometirsss rCceve such peears aud
conbde th ~ 20 the accepting Clerk uy eEdsred To-
be Geiiverta TO tbs owner We have un rgpt, nor ne
letirc, 10 Aaov th sr contents
hir. Cish-Cc. webb denies that h resolved tksse
letters ulcn am trust which prohibited hi, from rssi
ing th' AZ bot tast l. point upon which ptrheps har
atie meu milt differ he does not deny Met the Jack
ace was sesls "a up IN his press nee
The Cou A-~we understand him 90 say thai H. pack.
age vas hfuusht 10 s&n, sealed up