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

va, At housa No. 2s4 Second.st. They Continued 70
reside together the. elm, and 10 coha'" as mn aiu
wife untii 18th April. same year. says, 'dh,eson'
several months before had handed u hef q 49,.
without signature, containing romshuc it.suase,
and verses addressed 10 " Consueto Que hao
no suspicion of any impropuety .ne,eia, noi
Gid she open II IN presence OF Sau 's
son nrior 20 several days afier lo'h 1dhu ~
1870 ID had been laid IN drawer IRON AuSust, 1910
which was generally unlocked, ana "hen ioSAe9
could always be opened BY sey carrier oy say
Tdvin Forrest she saw Mr.. y. that moaning seen
. letter To New. Orleans, directed TO dr George
Jameson, New-Orea1s; her Afternoon oeing ,aIlea
10 the circumstance she looked Tor ana n'sse1 sao
letter after dinner, Mr. + called her ihlo MS Ioi
w unlocked his drawe and took from 1t SAID Ton.
snejo letter expressed himself with vehemence ano
anger. and censured her for keeping H. oul ola nor
a. that time, at any other time previous W 20
cember 1872 evince the slightest jealousy OF neI OF
,ny doubt OF her purity or chastity, and she conn
deItly believes he has TO the time OF the an
dayitj entertained the least doubt or Suspicion
of her chastity; she can prove tnat Mr Law,
son said Mr. Forrest sad 10 nun ssa,u ~
he wished to God that there was tue am
davit refers to their separation, her reslohS N
l6th-st, MIR F. meeting her In the street near tne
house and finding fault with her said to her "why
don't,you die :" &C. speaks OF Mr. Z. entering pro-
ceedings against her In Pennsylvania Tor divorce,
and says that "snce her marriage TO the said Edwn
Forrest she hath ever been true chaste ana iaitn-
full wife unto him." &c. The afhdavlt is on the APP
pIication to restrain Mr. F. from entering the pro-
ceedines at Pennsylvania. The complaint OF MIS-
r. in the present case charging Nh F. with adultery
as to several females named, was. previously to at
ter read The Court then asked the c0unsei IL !ney
were done reading. Mr. Van B. (who had read the
affidavits) said he was Just going to begin.
Mr. orc. wished Mr.. Van B. to read the state meh'
ofiMr Jameson contained in one Of the atl1avits,
but Mr. Van B. did not think he was called upon 10
do So The Court thought the statement not wishln
the rule and that it would not be proper whefe par
ties could be called as witnesses.
The Court, lit being past 3 o'clock said " we
will leave it, then, gentlemen till next year. ana
adjourn" ,.;.
Mr.. Van B said he wished the Court would permit
him 10 read part of the affidavit of MI Forrest, In
relation 10 the Consuelo' letter. Mr.. OC objected
he contended that Mr.. Van b. had no night to read
the affidavit OF state it, unless there should De some
nOnt in the affidavit of Mrs F. which is not intel
hojble without The affidavit of Mr.. +. should not
be read II the counsel will place his client on the
stand so that we can examine him, 1t will be der
eat matter. -
Mr. Van B. said the affidavit OF Mrs F. has been
read in part by the plaintiff he thought proper 70
give that on the other sidc matter OF statement
betw the parties there appeared 10 be great
sltiveness on that point by the other side ne con-
tended that the whole of the affidavit OF MI r.
should be admitted
The Judge said the question presents new lea
tu.e anu e will consider in relation to 1T lie VIII
acknowledge he is perfectly exhausted, ana is gao Oh
the little recess. He will give decision on FRIDAY
morning. The Court then adjourned to that time