New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-01-01
THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE.
Catharine n. Forrest VS.. Edwin Forrest-Ed-
win Forrest VS.. Catharine n. Forrest

SUPERIOR COURT-BEFoRE JUDGE OAKLEY
TWELFTH DAY-.-.W Wednesday, Dec. 81.
CQtharine ". Forrest agt Edroin Forrest,
and counter charge.-Action for Dvorce.-Contmued
The Judge said, before proceeding to trial, he
Thoughts proper to mention he found an anonymous
communication containing notice as TO what cyl
dence might be procured. II appeared TO be written
by an ignorant person, and woman. lie mentions
it to say 1t is extremely improper so 10 present mat
tiers to the Court. He would not have noticed II,
but that it might be repeated If the respective
counsel choose 10 look at II they can otherwise IT
will be destroyed II discovered the parties Will be
punsi ed. In relation to the afiidavis OF Mr.. and
Mrs ., the Court said 1t was ready 10 make Its de-
cisIon unless the counsel had more to saw.
Nh Van b. contended from Phillips on Evidence
and lst Hill AL, that he had night TO read the ai
davit Of MI F. and do 1t before reading tha' oil MIS-
F.. or that reevont parts should be read.
Mr.. orc. sand the case In HILL related to oral tes-
mony, and the right of opposite counsel TO get out
the remainder. This case is to produce an affidavit
and whether the fragment of an affidavit is to be
read he contended that If Mrs Fs affidavit IS read
the whole of it must be read, and read by the party
producing it, with some qualification as W ITO '''
vancy ,:, .,o on.s,;on ;s if no vii, ne~mit
the affidavit of Mr. +. to be read. m ade on the motion
as TO Injunction n, ana nonts as s to esnanston ''
Mr. OC said he did not ask the affidavit to be read
but if he accompanying affidavit is, (Which the cOun
sci does not propose to read) he is willing. The al
fdavit states Mr.. orc. said, that Mr. T. believed Mrs.
f. to le guilty, but did not choose TO Say.
The Judge does not know Mr.. r. can offer Mrs.
FPS affidavit without Mr.. Fs. The question Is If he
can read the papers, and If they stand on the footing
of ordinary communications between parties, similar
to BUSH css where facts stated and acquiesced
IN and got the Jury for what they are entitled to.
The question is if these aIfdavts are on the same
footing The general object of Mrs T. is not set
forth, but shown in the affidavit for limited divorce,
restraining him from l. eriering with her, and from
putting his property on OF his hands. An injunction
was allowed. TIE a. layit OF Mrs r. set forth GER
fam ftic icb Mr. nd to in ls afl
davlt, and Mrs. +. made counter affidavit III rebuff
tai, accompanied by those of others. The Court
does not consider that there is any analogy between
these affGavitS and conversations. THESE aihdavlts
are not between the parties but addressed to the
Court. The question was If Mr. f. should be re-
strained from pursuing his suit in Philadelphia while
she was prosecuting one here. IL could not be for
the Court to say, on the motion Tor injunction,
whether Mrs. f. was guilty. or not. II might be said
as well on motion for Injunction that the parties go
TO argument without answer, and 1t can be con-
tended. on the rule OF silence here that the whole
was admitted That could not be 50. The affidavit
OF Mr. f. on that motion cannot De given in evidence
as inciplent TO reading that of Mrs. +.
mr. Van b. entered exceptions.
Mr.. Van b. then wished TO offer the statement Of
Mr.. f. contained in his affidavit 10 the manner IN
which he discovered the letter OF Jameson, and
other letters in the same bundle, and subsequent In
timacy between the parties ana the admission OF
Mrs F. III her affidavit of the genulneness of that
letter and of the intercourse, association. between
Mr. Jameson and herself subsequent 20 that time and
I. r. Il
ter and Mrs. Fs statement abou. the letter, and de-
nylug and EXPLAINING that conversation Mr.. Van b.
said the Court VIII these are offers 20 read specl-
fed matters IN each.
M orc. thought It was the same oner, ont a little
modified.
Mr. Van b. though. the Court supposed there
were statements III Mr.. F.'s affidavit go irrelevant
that answer might be pat IN without referring TO
them-but here are positive points offered IN rela-
tiOn TO this SUIT the idea or Mrs. F.S application
was that Mr. f, without any ground " haiever, and
without believing the charges himself was pursuing
suit In Philadelphia solely with view 10 narraSs
Mrs. F.. great zeal has been said Dy the counsel
as TO the entire confidence Of Mr. F. az the time of
the separation IN the honor OF his wife the state
menis intended, probably not for the Court, but
for the jury nave ooectionto IL, but We wish
10 show matters as they are, conspiracy has been
spoken of every day and that this letter might have
been furnished aiter~ard by Mr.. Jameson and
brought up imaginary points We wish 10 show by
the adavits that II Is really the letter, and think
II should be admitted.
Mr. O'C denied that he had animated that the let
ter was not genuine II NAV well be the same. but
il is not legal evidence. As 10 conspiracy, We do
speak of this letter being conspiracy We
LOOK az conspiracy on more dangerous points, not
from shs letter or its writer though It is said be IS
not good man. and we are not pleased that he Is
not here. II testimony OF this KIND Is to be admit
ted, most dangerous and false witnesses might be
produced. | wish 10 have everything shown as 20
my client but there are rules, and common pru-
dence will dictate 70 counsel very often, even
against the desire of his client 10 prevent ques-
ton being asked or statement made. As 10 the idea
that Mr.. I. was pursuing suit IN Pennsylvania,
there was nothing said in the complaint of Mrs F.
that Mr. T. CID not believe his charge himself,
though II might nave been In some part of the case.
Mr.. orc. cOntended that The new proposition could
not be permitted.
Mir Van b. read point from the original com.
plant that Sir. +. was fully persuaded, IN making
the charge at Philadelphia, that his charge was not
well founded.
Mr. orc. sand 1t was so.
The Court cor sIdersd that It was against the es-
tabshed practice for party 10 read his own ahda-
VII preparatory ioreadlng that OF the other side. The
sfdayit of a party cannot be introduced in his own
favor II Mrs S affidavit is read, and anything IS
shown which will require explanation from Nh rs
affidavit, II may perhaps be given. but the counsel
must begin by reading Mrs F.'s affidavit
Mr. Van u, excepted, Dir, Van b. sad he w9lsi