New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1851-12-30

| To say, 1, was from my own vollnon 10 was amer
! the letter here shown from Mrs. T.. Mrs. + spoke
| OF a temporary separation. said could connive ~
nothing temporary, for Mr. Forrest was man 50
much above all disguise, that could say nothing As
TO that Mrs +. called with The note 10 my house.
MI. Van b. objected as II was not direct. MI OC
wished 10 show that Mrs. +. consented 10 sepers'e
/ from Mrs. V. The Court allowed il.
NfHess.-l advised Mrs f. 20 part with Mrs V.
SINCE May, when Nh. Goodwin tod me OF Mrs. VS..
| declarations
Mr. orc: complained a, the witness speaking of
| Mrs v He said he did 50 10 TX dates. The Court
/ thought II was improper
| Obtained her consen, TO her sister leaving the
house PROBABLY the very day the note here shown
was written to me by Mrs. F. l think inclssedi.
10 Mr.. F. that afternoon TO Font Hill afterward |
got the letter again think 90, the letter on Isl
November, the time Of paying the money.
Mr. Van B thought they had nothing 10 do with
the letter as Mr.. + appears to have hsi nothing TO
do with IL The letter IS called out BY them, AMI
simple one between the parties
The Court thought that It having been sent 10 Mr..
| F authorized the reading of the latter, ard shows
/ there was q sort OF sgelcy
: MIR. Van b. SAID Mr. l.. was applied 10 by Mrs. F.,
and their notes not 10 affect Mr.. F. II ougasto
| be known what Mr.. +. said on returnlrgit
| IL allowed. and Mr.. orc. read
DEAR SIR tod M ss,ery0sr proposal OF which she
uct before aware and she at onee proposed :, Leave
have sad TO you. you are WORKING b.ndi,tsd follow
since saw you, and am SICK head and heart
THY star shines darby" ron the seal
The above Is the substance
went 10 Font Hill on Sunday wen, on the rall'
road MIR. Stevens was there he had carried the
note Saturday night called on Mrs. +. IN ABOUT
a week; it Was TO tell her had received nothing
6efn.e from Nh F. hal spoken TO him but he
made no answer. Here IS another note think II
was written about 18th November received three
letters from Mrs. L. in November or December.
Mr. OC SAID he held note of Nov H. written by
witness to Mrs +
Nov 90 not think It was by knowledge OF MI F.
never wrote any Letters as to his knowledge excep'
he might have haopeneito be present
The letter appears ~ have had something lncloSec
DO not know except from whai Mrs. r SAID,
milhI eI's bill
Mir orc proposed to read It. bu, Mr.. Van B. OBJ
ec,ed.
Wuness-As to MIR. F. being present when wrote,
when MIR. +. Was SICK. | showed him the cores
PenCeiCe as 20 allowance, &c.
Mr. orc read the note. III substance as follows
DEAR Mas. T.. regret dad not see you "a Neady,
Was a. Font Hill on Fnday Forrest never iolAel better
closed He seemed be tile ckafed lie Is cross to-
day. aud SAD little otyoa hedaes out IL honor OF some
Wines could not say what was the inclosure
have no doubt the note from Mis-. +. TO me, here
shown, is the reply.
DEAR SIR After wairs Tor Ne 's;'eryor p,omsed me
came 70 day The OIL mall be Pd You % 5 5S%S%
abide by arrangement, Sc Substance
| The note here shown Is IN answer by me.
MY ps.R Mrs Receved yours; me ne, :, angry one
have known some engagement could not You mlent
hass TO my house You nave shot YOUR arrow to, HIGH
and struck of your hcst fiends. Sc Yours, truly
! Substance J.. l..
Another note shown 10 witness;
Yours v.t arrived. Was not angry. BAT hut, And did
desaSSg wRea heSe rs B. sSasi yoa II
to and ssd no The suspense sesp' me pIsone,
mean 20 wound as have suffered much myself, Sc.
(Sutstauc' of note Of Mrs + IL replyJ
HttneSs-l Will explain. at absence, having 1851
Tie copy here shown is the original letter to Mr..
| Sinclair, written BY ne.
Another TO Mrs /. from Mr.. l.
Your letter came IT was difficult task copy inclosei
Forrest came he read yonr note requesting nae 10 wire.
erg he evhces and the enhancement cannot account
Tor. Spoke Of article IN The At's tSaos anceJ A.
| Witness-Did not see the article 1t spoke OF Mrs
| F's living so long whhe husband and had num-
Der of children. :
After reassembng, Mr.. orc. asked further ques-
tons -
Wttness-Thinks Mr. + must have spoken to me
about the article The Atlas as to his family affairs
great deal was said In the sunday papers, under
stood but did not read the Sunday papers
Mr. O'C. then proposed TO read The note. Mr, van
/ b SAID the article was total perverslon OF what
SfsHs Ss n as t. hs 5s4t be p l no'
Mr. orc. reminded the Court that Mr. Burr said,
until the Macready difficulty no person ever had a
kinder husband. They wished To make II appear
that III January 1872 he had jealousy ana septIsseo'
but said nothing about the cause. In December,
1919, he took measures II had got out mar the DIM
Guilty was caused by his moodIness which arose
I in April, and the separation was IN May. lie APP
proved OF the letreT OF Mrs l.. 10 Mr. Sinclair say
ing there nothing against her, however us
forthe purpose OF repelling the pre.ense thai the
separation was caused by jealousy, tnas " Is uesea
TO read the article.
Mr.. Van B. contended it could no. be introduced.
1t was all anonymous article. II was SAID ina! Mr..
Forrest was angry when he read It.
The Court did not see the relevancy ne only
object was to show that the difficulty arose from the
Maoeady affair MI f., on reading the paper, un
al
Nh. orc. said The file could be left, and the Court,
in the progress Of the cause, may see tha' Is re-
levant. ~
O.-You have stated Mrs +. stated to you that the
cause OF the separation would never be communi.
Gated to living person, that she had requested M r.
not TO communicate IL. Can you tel WHICH tha' Soh'
/ A.-Between l9th January, when frs! heard OF
the difficulty and LIST May, when the separation TOOK
/ place no person was present but ourselves |! was
not the first time she spoke OF the separation we
had many conversations think It was on an occasion
when Mrs +. told me that she had asked Edwin II
/ he had any thing against her as VIE she too ING
he replied No, Catherine no-and would 70 uou
could for then | would not suffer the agony 90 "
/ think that was what she said, may not speak u
with precision lam sure she sad was ner requeN
to him never heard her say that Mr. r exacted rom
her pledge not 70 say anything about the cause OF
separation she did not say II was an nlsah MT
could not get over WI teI you "ha sac saI
hand had had quarrel the night before TINS was
after the party, 18Th November that ne was very
angry. and she said she told him that he lied, or u
was lie said tina, was great ofense against a
man who was so full Of Truth as MI r was sns
SAID she knew 1t | asked her 70 make every atone
ment that a wife could make TO husband tof these
words she said that he sait no man could Apply
these words to HIN and live, and no woman coun
apply these words and live with aim taihS tness
we're the WORDS il was the day dned at MI r g. at
ter the VOORHEES, party think II was FRIDAY 40 nov
remember whether or not Mr. wehtto ROM I'M on
ssturday next day after list Feb. 1850, I simply
sldsd MI f. In taking down, al his se9uesI, what ME
Underwood stated al Mr.. Sedgwlck's, and called az
MISS never interested myself TO gel Witnesses
have twice made afidavits OF this matter once i~
the pnrDo,e of beng sent 10 Pennsylvania. 800
The affidavit was read, dated 2sh February, io'Oi
! City Of New-York. ,
Until January, lsi9, always thought tney i,seu On
/ lar.. In h. IA A.