New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-01-02
THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE.



win Forrest vs. Catherine N. Forrest
SUPERIOR COURT-BKFoRs JUDGg oAKLgy.
TWELFTH DAY.. Wednesday, Dec. 81.
Cathariae n. Forrest agt. Eden Forrest,
and COUNTER charge-Aoton for Divorce. IT OatIauef.
The Judge said, before proceeding to trial, he
thought proper Ia mention he found an anonymous
eOmmuDica alton containing notice as 10 what evi-
dence might be procured IL appeared To be written
by an ignorant person and woman He mentions
It to say 1t is extremely improper so To present mat
tiers to tho Court lie would not have noticed 10,
but that It might be repeated II the respective
choose to look at 1t they other wise 1t
will be destroyed II discovered. the parties will Dc
punished In relation 70 the sihdayitS OF Mr.. and
Mrs. f. the Court said II was ready to make its de-
cision unless the counsel had more 10 say
Mr.. Van ID. contended from Phillips on Evidence
and LIST Hill AL that he had right 70 read the am
davit of Mr. F. and do 1t before reading that of Mrs.
f., or that reievont parts should be read.
Mr. OC. said the case in Iiiil related 10 oral tes
mony and the right OF opposite counsel 10 get out
the remainder. This Ease IS TO produce afhdayis
and whether the fragment OF an affidavit 10 10 be-
read, he cOntended that II Mrs F.s affidavit IS read
the whole Of II must be read and read by The party
producing IT, with some qualification as TO It's res-
vancy.
The Judge said the question is, If he will permit
the affidavit of Mr. + to be read IN ade on the motion
as to injunction and Mrs. F's affidavit IN ans yer,
with reference TO points AS TO explanation.
Mr. orc said he did not ask the affidavit to be read,
but II the accompanying affidavit is (Which the c0un
sci does not propose TO read he Is willing The af
fdavit states Mr. orc. said that Mr.. +. beheyed Mrs.
+. to be guilty, but did not choose 10 say.
The Judge does not know Mr.. H. can offer Mrs.
F.'s affidavit without Mr. F!s. The question Is II he
can read the papers, and II they stand the footing
Of ordinary communications between parties, similar
20 business, where facts are stated and acqulesced
IN and go TO the Jury for what they entitled 10.
The question is II these aihdayits are the same
footing. The general object Of Mrs. y. Is not set
forth, but shown in the aidayit-for limited divorce,
restraining him from interfering with her, and from
putting his property out OF has hands An injunction
allowed. The affidavit Of Mrs. +. set forth GER
tam particulars which Mr. r. alluded to IN MS afi-
daVlt and Mrs f. made a counter affidavit IN rebuff
tai, accompanied by those Of others. The Court
does not consider mat there Is any analogy between
these afiiCayits and conversations These aidayIts
are not between the parties, but addressed 10 tho
Court. The question Was II Mr.. 4. should be re-
strained from pursuing his sun IN Philadelphia while
she was prosecuting one here. II could moi be for
the Court to say, on the motion for Injunction,
whether Mrs. +. Was guilty OF not. IL might be said
as well On motion for inuIc'iO that the parties &c
10 argument without answer, and II c.a be con-
tended, the rule Of silence here, that the whole
was admitted That could not be 70. The affidavit
of Mr. on that motion cannot De given in evidence
as incipent 10 reading mat OF Mrs r.
Mr. Van u. entered exceptions
Mr. Van Is. then wished % offer the state nent Of
Mr. y contained IA his affidavit as 10 the manner In
which he discovered the letter Of Jameson. and
other letters In the bundle, and subsequent In
timacy between The parties, and the aGiOnsi0n Of
Mrs Z. ~ her affidavit OF Tie genuineness OF thai
leter and OF the Intercourse, association between
Mr. Jameson and hefsel, subsequent 10 that tas and
the conservation Of Mr. T. - Mrs. f. aOOng this let
ter and Mrs F.'s statement dbou. the Letter and de-
nylrg and explaining that conversation. Mf. Van y.
sad the Court Will ace these offers 10 cadspec
fed matters In each.
Mr. orc. thought II was tie same offer, Dus little
modified.
M. Van B. thought the Coan supposed there
were EtatemeLts A MT. F's affidavit % irrelevant
that an answer might be put in without IeierIngo
theIn-but here are pcsltye points offered 10 rei4-
ton 70 this SUIT the idea OF Nn. F.'s application
was that MI I, without any ground nbasyef anu
vithOG, believing the charges himself was pursuing
a sult n Philadelphia solely with a view " nnless,
Mrs. F. great oeai has been said by me .ouhoe,
as 10 the entire confidence OF DIR. AZ 'e suio VI
the separation, in the honor Of his wils she s.le
menis were intended, probably mot loi 'pe M
for the Jury We have objection - D"' 20 "iSn
10 show matters as they are aconspn@D' ~ pe,n
spoken Of every day. ana that ihls Ie',sI ngu hass
been furnished alters ara " III. 'sinars'l an1
the sdayits tbsf i, is really the letter and think
II should be admitted
ter was not genuine !, may wen De tne same, Das
n - oot Iegal esideDce. As 70 conspiracy, we 10
nov snssk Of this letter As being conspiracy We
look ~ conspiracy on more dangerous points, not
e., ,bis letter on is writer. though /, IS said he 10
no, a oood man. and We are not pleased that ne IS
not mere II testimony OF this KIND Is 20 be admit
i,d. most dangerous ana false witnesses might oe
nyoduced. ! wish 20 have everything shown a. ~
NV client but there are rules, and common pf>
dence will dictate 70 a counsel very 0iteD, even
against the desire VI his Client, 20 prevent que
ton being asked or statement made. As % sae ldes
that Mr. I. was pursuing suit IN Pennsy nhee,
there nothing said "a the complaint Of iirs y;
that Mr.. +. did not believe his charge himself
though Il might have been IA part Of the cass;
Mr. orc. commended that the new proposition coa'a
rot he permitted.