The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-01-21
THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE.
CONCLUSION OF THE EVIDENCE.
Summing up on Part Of the Defendant.
Superior Court.
Before Chief Justice Oakley.
OAruAnAuE N. YoRRRsT vs.. EDWIN roRREsY.

Before Chief Justice Oakley.
sArMAnaHE N. YoaREsT vs.. EDWIN FORREST
TWENTY EIGHTH
JAN. N-Mr. Forrest early in attendance Mrs.
III. Ssiessr Van Buren, ss 1' his summing up
The Chief Justice asked If there anything to Offer
Mr.. O'Conor said he confirmed in the opinion he
had advanced yesterday.
Mr.. Van Buren, simply objscted to the introduction Of
The Chief Justice said it was desrasle to avoid the
necessity Of going the proceedings again This
matter was formerly referred TO proper ccer and his
decision under the supervision Of the Chanc sor
But they were now constantly gettisg into difficulty,
testimony could have effect the verdict he woud
let 1t in.
examined by Mr. o'Oonor, depc.ed.--I am acquainted
with Mr. Forrest have general knowledge OF his real
estate.
Q-what is tn. Reasonable value Of those six houses
and lots in rwentysecond street. - should suppose
from the value of houses up that they
$4,000 or 5000; should suppose the lot occupied by
himself to be worth from $lsC00 $40 900; the fair
reasonable value Of the Ponhi proparty would be from
$4,000 to SGeCG0; occupied part OF Mr. Forests Co
vngton property In Ohio that property has two kinds Of
value; should suppcse sr Eorre't would make very
bad bargain he t. sell IT for s25 000 Dir Forrest
lots in the Main Of fCincinna-some six
seven lots; recollection Of It it is four years
worth from SIS oCo to $4,000 | an sc1uainted
with his Michigan property nor with his personal
perty.
Chief Jestice ! would mention that this testimony
coincides with Mr. Forrest estimate OF his
Cross-exam'ned-l know nothing shout his income
from Fontbll Q..What the income of the
vpgton property while you lived there? A.--rhs rent
paid was my services on the estate brought him
debt to me; left because Mr Forrest failed plate
bis contract; he paid me $500; the contract
celed BY mutual agreement: Mr. Forrest commenced
legal proceedings agsi pst and the
celled by mutual agreement have net been pretty
tive In this case; Englishrlao.
Mr. Lougstreet recalled Deposea that as near as
ne could at the time he found that painters
at work for nearly three weeks Mrs Forrest
went In the house in Sixteenth street.
evidence closed
MR. VAN BUREN's SPEECH.
Mr. Van Barren on the part of tie defendant proceeded
to sum up the evidence about II O'Clock Re said -
If the court please gentlemen Of the jury
you on the ckfe Of the eviden IN this proracted
rral sm that the counsel the other side will
agree with me that you have manifested the most
Eendabe patience in listening to testimony very large
portion Of which might to be entirely Irrelevant
tho case but yeu will remember gentlemen in respect to
both sides that parte. are deeply iute-
rested in the question which you called 70 try
what may be precisely issue but rensise a. to tas
attendant circumstances by which their
and hereafter is to stand ia the public Judgment and
they, therefore, desired that houla present ooy
matters strictly reey to TIE trial but which
might even not properly relevant to tae issue TO bs
tried throw some light the snd afford
PLANTATION and vindics,inn ssary circumstances
which made the subject Of present remark though
trial do not think you will fad that this extrsor5i
nary tes'iu ony is entirely unnecessary You will find
that even from all this will elements in respect
TO which uch great controversy has arisen and that
there ia Dot very much Of the testimony introduced
"uicn not DsaC IN some degree. the
trial. ihere are certain roserted facts in this
case Whioh think you will be pleased TO reflect upon
tecausc II 10 the progress Of the end much
tradction much which leads your minds 20 state
uncertainty it will be reIefto look back these facts
in relation 10 which there is dispute all aud
therefore dasite 10 call your attention in the first
stance, 20 them That there parties married in
1887 or 1879; that they to hs county that they
lived together in uninterrupted happiness for
eleven or twelve years; that hey agreed to seps-
rate in January. ls4s and carit5 agreement int,
execution iu May. 1919 are Ea.e, ia respect
which there is little disputs they had
any diifer nee so fur as the kntues OF this deendent
kindpess the plaintiff ia t. suit there is but
single particle Of testimony radst The concurrent
testimony IA the whole with tie xcepton OF that 10
which advert goes to estabish ttis acs-that, (~ith
Te exception Of that to which sivert he did admire
and lore hs wife; and that il was rot an Admiration Of
ordinary chafao.erthati it a. attention
OF the usual kind-t1at It evennsis Of temper
extraordinary In sHy man think, uuder all circum
stances think you vii! be prepared cocede Such
being bis conduct-sucn being the relation CT the par
ties he put his wife In respect that there is
dispute shs assented TO beisg pat away In respect
to that think you viii admit. the eviie1ce there
can be no reasonable dispute That hs had any
difterencs With human being excep. you regard the
professional contest between MIR Macready and Mr. For
rest as such diferencethst he had any differ
ence with human being except this woman to whom
he fond and devoted believe ths testimony ia
this most satisfactorily shows he put her away
brought her to the house where she desired TO the
house of Mrs Gocwin ehe invited TO Mrs G,dwius
as gentleman swears By her. she there as
the testimony shows at her requet BY Mr. Forrest
After having done 50, few months before he
tely silent the which had led to the separa
tom and that silence is used argume
him-vith what propriety, sh s presently consider
With kindness and hoerslity which think, you can
appreciate when this separation took pls,e he allowed
and is argued that this evidence that he hal
no faith In the charges male against her Gentlemen
OF the jury, you will not fsii TO remember that
up TO this moment, he Is doing precisely the same
thing-tbat voluntarily, and without any obya-
nom n OF law, or any specific contract, from May
Yaying her at the rate Of 81 800 year quarterly in sd
vance-tbat now at all events and If please. is al
eoncede, II the evidence authorized you sod
20 this conclusion on the subject And while Id
such belief that he Voluntarily makes this inera, aos
snce TO his wife It Is an cucontrai ictod fact in this
Nor had this support allowed 20 her think
shall show you been avowa q there being ia'en-
ton on hts part to apply for divorce He removed
Philadelphia and after hs had removed he found that
the facts Of The separation SetSeer himself and his wife
had been the subject OF remark and that il attri
buted to misconduct his part lie entered into
respondeDcs with his wife in December, 1919 70 which
will peahe to give attepoo stating to her that their
separation bad been made the subject OF plan in
psot 20 him end that that unus him she per-
ecty wsl knew and desiring know whether she gave
ANY hind ~ authority TO there corverctors and rumor,
which Dase their separation matte. Of accusation
against him lie received to this on unqualified denial
but 'bors afer into possession OF evidence which
could ts 70 bring conviction t. hfm that she had
done repeatedly the evidence IN this case discoses
testimony which they dispute and which proves
tse matter satisfactorily. rhis sats1ed him =, to
The neceity for Mrs Forrest divorce and correcpon
4sucs between the parties IN Janusry and Feb
rue1y $50 which It will be Necessary for you TO rea'e
yulary Mr Forrest then. az We see, resi-
i q the State OF Fennsylvanla, De became shus
sel test divorce from his wife must be ootainedi
snd that Il was due TO himself that this divorce
sh0lla BE- properly obtained, audthat the reasons
why this divorce should b. obtained as far as
eas ncossfn'y 70 the object of obtaining tbe oil
voice. v'thou. epy unnecessary iojury 70 her feel
ingr, ahou1 10 spread before the publc. Mr Forrest
then er,4 4ysd Mr. stdgwick sni the brst we know OF
any interference u the matter !. "a interview between
MIR aedgvi irs ord Mr. O'5cnor We have the testimony
of Mr. Sec wick that he wrote TO ~ ooonoran Jau.
uary, 1sEt proposing m Interview to talk over these
.ubects. MIR D'Cono: stated 10 mr. sedFwicE. IN MS
reply NJ early data (what prsc'stlv the cate was
Nj srdssirh does not recoilrc) that be oorlc no ~
low CivCTCe TO oh tanned tie ground % hff,
Fogrsg misconduct he could not aloy t-.apt eitet
that tina Mr. Bryant called into ccusults'io7 a.
amutuai friend Of Nr. aud Mrs Forrest 'rtanky
whose staining IN the immunity woliu al,h+1a
ore TO believe cafe adviser estnab ne II IN ~ tos
relations of ls AZ pre-. emirentiY Ia tb dorttia
and private If lie was called IL ~ e3V,-s. " Is