The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1851-06-05

referred to the person who had been
seduced by said Nathaniel p willis and whose ruin had
broken her fathers heart and brought him an I'M
timely grave.
That within two days after the publication In the city
Of New York Of said article several Of the friends
plaintiffs to them at their home in the village Of
Railway and spoke Of said publication referring to
the plaintiff Mary L. and expressed their sympathy that
she should have been thus assaed within the week
ensuing the said publication the plaintiffs became
to their extreme grief that only the village
where they reside but in the city Of New York and
elsewhere it was publicly and notoriously reported aud
assumed that the plaintiff, Mary l., the person
ferred to in said article the victim Of seduction.
And the plaintiff, Mary l.. Of her knowledge and
the plaintiff Smith Coddingon Of his perfect confidence
and belief soemny assert and declare that II Is Also
lutely and unqualAedy untrue that the plaintiff Mary
l., seduced by said Nathaniel Willis, or that
she had any improper association connection
whatever with the said Willis And the plaintiffs further
positively and unequvocay assert that there
foundation in truth for any charge of want Of and
chastity made against the plaintiff, Mary
And the plaintiffs further in like manner assert that
it is absolutely and unqualihedy untrue that the
father Of the said plaintiff Mary became heart
or that his death in any caused expedited
by Of any correspon dence association which
had taken place between the said Nathaniel p willis
and the said plaintiff Mary L On the contrary, the
plaintiffs assert that TO the latest hour Of his life her
said father justly entertained the most undoubted
hdence in her integrity and virtue and that he
any time made any allegation against the plaintiff
Mary L. in respect Of her said with said
Willis except that Of the admitted indscreon Of having
been party to such correspondence without the
ledge Of her parents while inmate OF her fathers
house and under age.
And the plaintiffs further state, that the plaintiff
Mary L. at the period Of writing said letters was OF the
age of about sixteen years had recently quilted board
ing school and wholly inexperienced in the usagss
Of society. That the said Nathaniel p Willis was
literary and professional writer Of considerable celebrity
and the author Of many works of poetry and fiction
which had been the subject Of great admiration the
circle in which the plaintiff Mary L. lived visited
That the said Nathaniel P. Willis regarded by the
plaintiff Mary l., occupying eminent position In
the world Of taste and letters and from the
was acquaintance Of her father, and visiter at his
house and that the plaintiff Mary had heard
his standing a. Of virtue and character brought
in question: and from the further fact that the plaintiff
Mary l., terms of intimacy and friendship with
the wife of the said Willis, (who ooSnzant OF her
correspondence with him she did imagine that
correspondence with him of the kind which subse-
queny ensued could in any manner be made the foun
dation for censure or reproach.
That having been mentioned in newspaper article
of said Nathaniel p Willis the author Of work Of
fiction then just published she wrote a to said
Willis to disavow the authorship of such work Tha.
the said Willis replied to said note, correspondence
which thus commenced continued for the period Of
about two months when the fact Of its existence be-
came known to her parents that although she has
recollection Of the contents Of her letters
said Willis she believes that they may contain some
statements passages entirely masinatvs but which
BY false application perversion Of their meaning
might be construed to her prejudice and upon which
the said james Watson Webb in the article from his
newspsp.r, herenbeore alleged. based charge Of In
parity against her which she soemnsy avers
totally withou, foundation in truth
And the plaintiffs further state that the said james
Watson Webb has not, had any right title
to the ssd notes, letters, any Of them, any
right permission authority to open the scaled package
which oostsned them has he had any right
permission to inspect read exhibit make known
EAe contents Of said notes letters any Of them
any part thereof any right title to the custody
thereof otherwise than the confidential friend
agent Of the Esther Of the plaintiff Mary L. upon tn
trust and confidence reposed in him by saii
father that h. would obtain the from the said
" ll- and Immediately hand the to her aid
father
Nevertheless the said James Watson webh without
any right title permission or authority whatever and
In violation Of the trust and confidence rcposed In him by
the ;ather n ths plaintiff Mary L. and without the
knowedfe Of the surviving parent Of said
Mary and without the knowledge consent OF the
plaintiff Ell ssr Of them has the plaintiffs in
formed and believe opened the package containing the
said notes and letters has read the raid
tiers and has exhibited the or SONS a them or
4
part thereof to two, three, persons
IN the city Of New York, or elsewhere.
And the psi-tias further state that IN further vo-
a,ion Of his ia,y and Of the trust and confidence
ossd ia aud accepted by him a, sfosrssid the saia
James Watson Webb, the nineteenth day Of May
hourand eight hundred sud fifty one, b, statement
pubhed by bin in bs sad newspaper Of that date poo
posed 10 place the Aforesaid letters before George r.
Morris % the city Of New York and prove their
THY and to place q said letter, in :he hads Of SAID
Morris for his peruSa Ouch offer being aroweely made
appears from the article In said esspaper conang
sad oTer) for the purpose ~ procuring from said
r IN the Of the PLAINTIFF and for tbs Purpose
Of newspaper publication report establishing the truth
q the charge made against the plaintiff asry l. and
which charge she again most soisanly be alb
sosutey fs!sc and groundlsss.
That annexed hereto and marked schedule r. Il copy
q the article published by aid Jamcs Walton Webb In
his aid newspaper ofhsy tn. nineteenth thousand
eight hundred snd nftyone and which the plaintiffs
pray leave 70 make apart " this thcir complaint.
And the Plaintiffs claim and insist that the said notes
and letters belong to them the said Plaintiff Mary
that he their property and tina. they
b. law entitled 10 the possession and custody thereof
And they further state that the twen,y arst day
q Ssy one thou'and eight hundred snd hf;y one they
tsu- &c Aaid notes and letters 10 be demanded from
sald 5aues watson webb but thst b. did not deliver
them but 10 reply to such demand stated that h would
ioos them ID deliver tLem the pAint one OF
them ~ thC proper time rhst TIN ad last mentioned
d.mand vns made 1t the Office u taia Webb In Wall
street 10 the city u New York. and they charge. in
sruaion and belief thst the aid Veto at the time OF
such demand hal the notes and letters at his said q
Zee In be tu.tody AMI corirol
Aud they fur;her state that from the aforesaid pro
ceedngs q said Jane. Watson webb, the plaintiffs
apprshtnve end charge that he has made or caused
wGF