The New York herald., 1851-12-08
The Forrest Divorce Case.
SUPERIOR CoURr-iN cHAMBERs.

The Forrest Divorce Case.
SUPERIOR CoURT-IN CHAMBxRs.
. ... e.. .f Before Hon. Judge Duer.
DC. 6-In the matter Of Catherine N Forrest,
against Edwin Forrest, order issued By Judge
Campbell that the plaintiff show Why the order
obtained BY bsr for struck jury should not be vacated
the striking OF the jury proceed to trial before an
ordinary jury Mr.. John Van Buren appeared In sup
port Of the application which was made ON the affidavit
OF Mr Forrest setting forth amongst other things that
the ps.tn had neglected to have the jury struck and
that he believed was done for the purpose of delay
of Mrs Forrest and her attorney, Mr. Chase, on tbs
grounds that the original documents sent to Texas
tion Ann Flowers were not yet ana were Of
great importance TO the plaintiff Mrs Porrests affidavit
was for the most part necessarily Information and
belief she is always anxious to to trial but she
advised that she should not 10 trial without those
papers telegraphic despatch had been received from
council or agents there and that they ha been sent By
express to New York The affidavit Of Mrs. Forrest went
on to state that though Chief Justice Oakley had init
mated that the could be tried until the Jury
struck yet the for the defendant attended
at the trial term from day to day calling the case
Mr. Van buren said that the davits produced BY the
plaintiffs counsel were In the main napplicabe to the
pre.ent motion and b: thso proceeded 70 draw the at
tenton OF the court to the precise position In which the
case stood The unsel alluded to in Mrs. Forests sf
hdsvit himself (Mr b. He bad attended the court
the Impression that they had right to try it by
dnsry jury, the plaintiff having neglected to strike
and the cause nv..isely given Tor the de!sy was
That court did not Sit however till eleven O'Clock and
thought proper to attend the Superior Court
Judge-n the order does not prohibit tho trial BY an
oCpary jury then there will be necessity to vacate
Mr. Van Buren read the order which has already been
published and continued to say that It was matter Of
Indifference to the defendant ct the time whether the
cause was tried By struck jury or an ordinary jury
The plaintiffs application about the commission was en-
trely out OF the defendants counsel had bssn
asked where the witness, Ann Flowers was he would
have informed them but when the power of the Court
invoked to compel him state what had become Of
the commission sued to examine her they left il to the
Court and the Court decided that could interfere
There can be motion made here to postpo this
When that motion Is made, the defendant win be
ready to chow why should not BE- postponed and
By his delay With regard to the fact Of Mr. OConor
being in another court be should not have undertaken
that engagement he ONT Van B had given up other
causes and had suffered defaults in many instances be-
Of his engagement in this The first gre Of
application for the present motion For
the Court would gross imposition They never
have consented to that order the effect Of which to
Jury but hat they bad been misled Ths sfndsvit Of
Mr. Forrest upon which counsel moves this appca tion
states that had he known the order cunnngy de-
vked by the council for Mrs Forrest he never would
have consented to it. Ths defendant applies va
cate that order Hthat Is done, there IL question
that the trial will be called on and then apple alton
may be made By the plaintiff TO postpone It, which the
defendant viii meet BY sfhdavis and papers In refer
enoe TO the commission issued TO examine Ann Fovers
Mr. Van Buren said that he stated before and so the
morning newspapers represent that that commission
was not 10 Be producd on the trial and that the plain
tin intended to examine the witness the stand There
no mystery about IT, be stated before and the Court
would ind II reported In the newspapers at the time
the rule cannot be entirely vacated the defendant asked
intention Of the Court which put both parties
the came footing Mr.. Van Buren, then read the
Of the order.
Mr. 0conor in reply raid that 1t had been suggested
that other counsel employed n this suit but there
no proof Of that and they on the part Of the plaintiff
Forrest in this In reference to the appearances
which have taken place ut the General Term OF this
Court IL remarked that the Court In which he (Mr
oConof) had been attending aid not sit Til eleven ana
that the Superior Court sat at ten o'clock and that he
did not appear in Court in this matter but the attorney
and there no necessity for his (counsel) attend
anee and besides that Judge Oakley had previously
stated that the necessarily suspended until
tie jury struck he would also remark that during
part OF the time the two Courts met at the hour and
that there was great deal Of display the
part OF the counsel In calling the every day IL
nconveniebt to strike the jury unees the Is
lain to be tried the jury be struck in forty eight
hours, but unfortunately the trial In which he Mr.
0CoDer has been engaged has not shown any signs
terminating within that time The other Of delay
..n on 70 hat be tn. bsa nu o ~ ~,
stance Of the defendant tive former occasions and that
10 was not unreasonable for the plaintiff 10 require
little delay In consequence Of the absence Of those
The Judge thought present advised that the on
ly question for him whether he ought not TO
such Modification ss would have been granted at r,t
vscate the order altogether n the plaintiff has been
guilty ef any unreasonable delay:
Mr.. 0Conor certsin that the Court would not
10 the conclusion that there any sonable
delay on the pert Of the plaintiff that alleged
ur3 II had been said that the obtained by
imposition be had objection 10 that term IL sives
offence and therefore he should quarrel with IT,
The Judge said there vas no room for the imputation
of surprise or imposition.
Mr.. o'ooDor, 70 Tn. imputatiop OF cunning, said
that he would admit that be should exercise that
cunning which God bad given him. lie then referred
to the delay In executing the commission 10 examine
occasions acted in good faith The delay in the receipt
Of those 10 the reason Why the jury has been
pessded to that his engagement in the United States
Court but the rsai and true reason h. that they desired
those papers
circumstances under which the commission was is.ued
the Of s change from New Orleans TO Texas
Mr. Forrest should pay Mrs one hundred dol
lars. 10 enable ber 10 send council there and that
nSney va. p''d ana he Ont Van Buren, suppc.st il
rst instance IL does not sppesr what thsse papers
the witness viii be put upon the stand and there
csDse for the DELAY On that account with respect to
other counsel being in the cause be (Mr rsid
on the faith of Mrs. FORESTS sfdavt in which ske
stat ed that Mr. sandford was her counsel
Mr. o oConor-Not is this case there are three suits
pending between Mr. and Mrs Forrest
Mr., Van BuIez-when ne come 20 the trial Of ever
do) shell whether that gentleman Mr sandford
soesged in II not with regard 10 the witness Ann
Flowers 1t not the custom for counsel to inform their
opponent VI 'ueH e"o tne ucenohnts cOun-
eel had 10 believe, even n they had informed
Mrs Forrest that Ann Flowers would be examined ON
Try the cause As TO ih. order which they nov .ppd
20 vscste he would sgsn say that consent 70 Il had
been obtained from Mr. Forrest under q miscopeeptou
Of the facts spd that, certainly. imposition
The Judge-He may have msupderstood but there
vas no intention to practise imposition
Mr. Van Bsren-But certaisy the defendant never
would have consented 20 this order only his cousssl
sdvhed him, under the impression that bo<h parties
would be allowed TO participate in the privilege This In
such circumtances and he therefore asksd 10 have Il
vscat, or mcdhed on the ground Of the