New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-02-02
COURT PROCEEDINGS
The Forress Divorce Case.

Judge oakiey.-csIAsrins ~ Forrest ast E4xs. n
yesf-The argument en- TIE motion By w. Oc,..'
for judgment ssreeab, 10 the nneing Of II, INV -
q counter motion by Mr.. o'Cenor for ca, ~ ,- -
cssdings till exceptions shall have been b, .,s
| continued.
Nh orc. said the only matter remainsrs xA.,u-
Court adjourned the case, was for s.sy Of pya...
ings, and was calling your attention 10 he p,a,,
| ty OF your Honor proceeding 20 judgment
TIE Court said 1t has discretion in the mas.
to extending time. The qJesIlos 90 Ia vAs,ss,nS
Court shall proceed TO cecr,e in whole sr ia ,,,,
There has been broad felo OF inquiry. ssd
six persons alluded 81 IN u. The case hasb.s,
uacted BY the testimony ssdueed, and 10, Oh 49,.
to by the counsel.
called the attention of counsel to the Dc sso. :,
Court of Appeals, which rs new 10 me, ana opec..s
to wha, has heretofore existed IL is That ne,ssSs
standing a divorce so thai the marriage Is a -
still the wife retains her GIT OF dover hEskss
| the rue that when alimony Is allowed, tas viz ~
sirrs her right OF dover IL Is proper thar
should be embodied IN tbs decree TO prusers ~
! riRhss OF the husband IS TIE Court also ref.,ss
| 10 the question Of expenses IL thought ia, -
cree should not be dCcSete so as TO CO he, nrS.
real estate, but stay VI proceedings or ssegti.y
Mr.. OConor said there Is no icea that ifr. Fo,,.s
INTENDS TO dispose of ans OF MS property IN III, at.
The only motive for oI creating the lien 10 10 ,avs
this power Of right 10 tne properly But TIE ee'eN
/ ant rs mol eng1ktt u Duolncsc, NO IeCl az n.
recurring or ncumbeuGg his estate, so that tie Ca
ton does not seem 10 be necessary. II yJH ilos,,
pleases to issue decree and saw execution ssAa rss
be cocketed 1t can be done although II weala cag
hold this amount ot piopeny IL can be done M
the Clerk need not docket 4,
Asto expenses, we have gone on the idea mn
a credit for what has been ycluatlrlly vst1 Gum
the progress OF the suit, a. IN the case OF San ~
/ Burr but IN that case there ~aS AZ order Of n
| Court Mrs Forrest was tho lawful wne ~ Nh
and he is hound 10 afford her means tsa, ao1l.s
requisite for her the sun mas been pend AZ s0l,s
as To make the credit ABOUT ~ 500. hOa fsf az
| would cover expenses an not prepared > savk Il,
can pc shown by a taxing oihcer. Iaai aots a.
pears 10 be unexceplon able aad we think Urea
| Your Honor will bear IN mind no allo Facrs hs
/ been made to Mrs +. excsp, 500 on the ,oaxs
sion 80 Texas. The $3.50 year wa sau n.
parties agreed was jaSt sufficient 10 afIeri her ~
! means of living, aud the expenses lwA.1 nas
| have been great should De pait. There sassss,s
! number OF witnesses tue iTial lasted i5.,yeay,
All unparalleled time. TheTe~ere tso ceEshsisr
| to New Orleans as 10 Anna Flo stnsle tsb
| graphic communication 10 Ne~OIesEs Ccsis A.
! SAVING nothing of allowance to counsel he a..
penSes for keeping witnesses here, adoihsr msisn
| must very great.
The Court thought the party nigh, Ia sllo,.,
row sufficient for future expenses.
| As 10 alimoHy anu dover. II at any tine Nrs fv
rest shall be entitled 10 dover, appisstlsa can n
made 10 reduce altInony. Ahmony Is 1tte % "A,
| lowest principle, and without positive knoxedpa
his real estate or any as 30 bis personal estate h
! could, ii is true, make VII cutting of Ms To.
res, iiom interest in the personal estate, sllus
| had not committed aiultery he would re' presaSI
| have done so. Every end justice will % ms N
provision allowing application whsreyes Mrs P9.
rest might be entitled 10 couole portion, &c. On.
erwiss it leaves her IN the dark as io the future
says 10 her. unless you consent 10 forsgo KlShld
| dover worth five or six times as much rsfAsu
you cannot have slmony. That would seem %
make her situation innocent as she Is, worse han
it " ould have been had She ia Oy aIddole notAns
think your Honor ought to leave that asaI w. i
tween themselves.
Asyour Honor thinks there Nigh. be an inasts
at some future day IN enforcing this $;c90s year
and also dover, AJAX your Honor to have confidence
IN your successors who viii take care r'ooAAIu
to that point
Mr.. Van Buren, said the grea, OBJ &c, lie had
opposing the motion ~ Ognen, IL that enc Of he
parties would be az liberty To marry syaia his
said she VIII DO 90 a. her peril but -sshas psrh
there - she Will have decree ron u cCMwAt
Count AS to her being able 10 resume Der ihskss
name, il appears nom play bills and other Sa ~
she has cone already. Tne verdict has tcl "
tanned and the rest Is mere form bat II caITlstnp
effect might be attended with disastrous resuln ~
there 10 no necessity OF entering the ludgneMM
form OF decree has been handed me. om W
of II is that the Court fixes alimy, and IS 70 te1s
that marriage dissolved. plahun pernilnf y
marry again, defendant promoted TO many arm, |
and certain provisions as To amount 10 he pihA
We say, as We said before, thai the couas 81 0s:ea
during the trial, that the Jury should rsss gpeau
moDy. We objected TO Il, ana offered no t.slinoQ
The rules As TO entering judgment, are IN IN
section and 27sth section OF the Code and M |
leave the Judge merely TO enter The judgment w
suppose that II decree is 20 be entered, nrhlWM l
the finding OF the jury The Court viii sui nm |
power to liz the anm0ny. As 10 when ahrnI |
should commence, the rule in England and ~ !
country I'LL the case Of Burr AZ anst Burr was, mss
shall commence rom the time OF the decree, fern
future maintenance OF the VIE. The Csaf silM Il
by Shelford on Divorces, 59i, and cases ci1d, M
il IL so In England.
This case Is different from Burr and Bun. lnh
ont IA ea her. W. m all ade II
Forrest OF 81 200 year, which two separate tM !
have decided rot Only TO oe sufficient, bat h'ml
and alinOny cannot II allowed from the time Of |
teIlng the sait, but from the time OF decree.
Plaintiff wil have a right to dover, aad h@ l
Gent security. Your Homer suggested ihtiym
proper II slirnOny Is decreec thar Mrs Fsrresis'M
iirA resign her hight to dover.
II is was intended by he Jury, as no don't i W,
that the $1,000 year for HE should BE- IA iEa
DOVER. naDy consider that IL was IN sddl.iohHu
a fancy cot warranted by anything s10sa1W
case.
There is no danger Of Mr. F's alternating rJa
bis estate large portion of 1t, uafoI,uns.syN
kind tina, he ceuldDOt II
AS to the idea that the finding of the Jury iscaA
be allowed rs slimoDy IL ~ prepostercEa Msi
case such a. Burr, and man worth llm !
a Court may take onc.aXtl. az vs. ose
there, the Court ailo ned Mrs. Burr &l00oe ayes |
bur It was yindictiVe punishment Of tbs Cswf-s
was suit for cruel treatment, where t1e hisnm
treated his wife like 3 brute.
I'M the cases shown here, one third or one.ew /
oil The husbands income has been usually siew l
where the wife is not 70 have the clsItdyG1
chidIen-oEe exception Is where wife o1hrs |
large portion Of the estate 10 the husb ard w |
Burr brought 10 her bus0 md some 800 opi 'ns /
come OF which would be $4,000 year OlemM i
exceptions may be where cruel ne aIlneaf nIrcS /
OF the suit, and the Cour. awards for puhS'n@ |
In PeckfoId against Peckford the allossn". /
something more than one third, becaa.e cneH
would not be sufficient, agreeaby TO ihs sssis~"
her maintenance. A..
In no Gaze has the Courts ever allowed NOS
one third or onehsf Of a husbands iAcsDs ""
wife does not herself bring the property. A.. l
In the present case the aiO~ ance Is fully Ihew i
OF M Forests income, and is double vnal ns l
ties themselves agreed upon as being surceh
what twc Courts decided not only 10 re som8~
but exec sdingly liberal. -
IA to Mr.. FORESTS estate there is onlf III i
mony Of Mr.. Wakely. the property q, ToDth1'
show to be unproductiye. III
The correspondence between Mrs. Feusa -
Mr.. Lawson, shows that $4,000 was ASKED. c9M
+. was unwilling, as he thought he was notwbny
and. NJ kxnr ArILE