New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1852-01-17


tina. Is my recollection. but my memory Is not very
perfect 1t appears from letters show that ne was
empoyed this IS Mr. Sedg wlcks letter prIor 10 . a
February, 1850, Mr. S. sla-ed to me the manner ne
proposed ~ procure divorce l spoke 20 Mrs For
rest about Il. and communicated / ner MT. Sed5-
Sicks proposition, so far as uGderstoo1 tie nature
Of 1t / made the communication at the suggestion
Of Hr Sedgvick / saw Mrs Forrest at her house,
where she lived, IN Sixteenth 81; | wrote letter
after converting with her, to Mr. Sedswick. tO0-
jected 10 BY Mr.. O'Cl Thls IS the note.
Ritasss-When / communicated what | did 10
Alrs Forrest, she consented % divorce
Mr. Van b. wished to read the notes. II was o.
jecie6 10 Tie Count said the whole o! the cores
poIdence, II objected 10 at the time, ~old nav .
been excluded. Mr.. Van 3. contender tna,' as II
had been partly given. the Whole should Oe' nc
Court seemed 10 colncI5e. Nr. O'C. wished 70 ue
heard. lie lutet to the testimony OF MI eeus-
WICK, that Mr.. said the arrangement was 4oot',
as he thought beng anne ably sTIangea' "uen s.e
applied to Mr. orc , and Mr.. OC stated TIE arrange
feIt must he 3nslseni with the idea OF MIS- OF
rests entire iILOcence. Notes were attempted 20
he shown and AZ the time ruled out, &C. Mr v y
cOntenoed thata witness could not be calledto tne
stand and q letter be wrote at the time read. lie
must state what was sst, ana what nc eomh4-F
Gated
Mr.. Van B. said the proposition was 70 introduce
the note written by Mr. Bry ant TO Nj sedgwlGk. hI;
Forests agent, and y As proper - be read FSlI o'
the mattel 50 far as the negotiation vas con
cerned was proved, and Mr. O'C SAID u VS. no use
to read the notes re intended ~ call Mr. Bryan
Mr. Van B said it was shown by Mr.. seds wick
that Mr Forrest wished 10 go directly into tne
Courts on Affirmative charges bu. Mr. Seog
thought II could be settled in a better way by gong
10 the Pennsylvania Legislature and that Ae got
MIR Bryant as mutual friend, 70 effect the arrange
melt Mr.. Bryant spoke 10 Mrs. orres', and II IS
proper that his conversation resu ting tnereirOn
should be read. II was the conversation which "a
been acted upon The counsel could eX anime the
wines as 10 any explanation.
Mr.. orc. cOntencec that The communication might
be imperfeCt The witness j. 70 state what occurred
TIE Judee sid that the difficulty before when the
notes wee excluded. that nothing had been shown
that M Bryant was Mrs Forests agent, and the
difficulty stlil exists.
oh your interviews with Mrs Forrest, did the
aujhOrze you to communicate win Mr.. Sedg.lcS
(Ooiecieo 10 as leaoingl
Mr Van b. said the letter Of Mr. Forney was al
mitted when it was said Mr.. Forrest an'horizei HIN
to wllte Letter.
The Court sard the counsel might ask if Mrs For
rest authorized Mr. D. 10 make a communication.
DO not recolect the precise import Of the con-
versation only know generally that she said she
willing to consent to a divorce, and something
was said to pecuniary consideration; DO not re-
collect any more do not remember that there was
any conversation as to whether l should communl-
cate it to Mr.. Sedgwick inferred that had a
proposition from Mr. s to get her consent to a d.
VOrce. and got II.
Nh Van then Offered to read the note communi-
eating it, but the Court did not admit 1t.
Odd she make any objection except asto the al
Iowa Objected to by Mr.. O'C as leading
NstnsSS-Do not recollect as TO that conversation
had several other interviews with hentefore lith
Feb az che OF the lntervie VS. there was an appoint
ment made between Mrs Forrest and Mr.. Sedg~tck
and myselfto meet at Mr.. Sedgwick's Office, which
was appointed for 18TH February, with tue expecta-
ton that MIR O'COnor would be present do not re-
collect who first suggested as TO MIR OConor Mr.
Sedgwick was desrOus OF IT, and Mrs. Forrest also
believe they were both desrous as to that the sug
eestlon might possibly have come from me think 1t
lie from l4T
should be present at that interview
Q.-What was the object of having Mr.. OC. pre-.
sent
Objected to by Mr. O'C.
Mr. Van b. wished TO know II 1t was III relation 10
the allowance Question allowed.
Witness AS 10 that do not remember DO not re-
member what was her object in having Mr.. O'C.
present IN relation to what in this letter, know
II true but to personal reco Lection OF tina,
IN after, have none do not remember any c)nyer.
satioD with her authorizing me 10 wrte the noe
vas authorized to appoint the interview was SO oy
R9 5eG oy ems . .Ss note I'm. tho
Court thought that the remarks could no. be read
Mr.. Van h. saidthay we're SO IN Mr.. Forneys letter.
The Court would allow 1t 80 far as II gave au-
thOTty, but not as to remark IN 1t Mr.. Van u.
ss,d ne Soud To-. o.er Inc .! and at I f
cluded the Court unlocking at the ne'e: SAD the
last sentence was the yeIy thing which Mr. Bryant
did no. remember, and it was excluded:
Mr.. Van b. offered, also, he said, to show
the result of these interviews, as com nunl-
Gated to us through Mr.. seds wick :, a,.,i me
IN to the writing Of this note think heard OIher
objections from Ms. Forrest as 10 divorce oeslleS
PEE unery conscientious, do not Eno" II cohlnu-
ncaied TO Mr.. +. had frequent conversations WIN
Mr. Sedewck on the subject wenito MI Sedg"icAs
Office, but MIR. orc. did not come.
BIZ Ilr OC-Ny lady visited Mrs. Forrest within
a week past do not remember that Mrs. Bryant had
ANYTHING TO DO with the propositions to Mrs. Forrest
the writing IN the note shownls that OF my y0lnseS
daughter 1t drafted by ne and this is copy by
her rather think II was handed TO Mrs foiresl De-
fore l4ih Of February think before her agreeing 90
TIE interview al Mr.. SedgwIcks that paper was lhe
proposition OF Mr.. Sedgwick, as | understood II.
[ l. after not now read, but marked Saw the dIait
Of The petition at Mr.. SedgwIcks ONCE, Intended 70
bo sent to the Pennsylvania Legislature recognize
the paper shown. go
Bg Mr Van B-Should think the note written by
my daughter was not sent before Feb. .,
Mr Van h said he would agree that the whole OF
the correspondence should be read Mr. OC ss!d
the design was 10 read these two last.
As TO the last proposed agreement, Mr.. o. T. sald
Re would offer the commute alton spoken o. rom
Mir Bryant to Mrs. Forrest and also MIR. Is letter 20
him. (Mr O'C) as Mrs. Forests counsel. II ls 20 De
found, MIR orc said, IN 1875 Of the Book OF Plead
ines, &c i'll Court A.
Mr.. orc read the paper spoken Of written by MI
b 5 daughter. Agreement-lst, the agreement Jas;
Lawson, Trustee, or some Other friend may. "a
-acTeemeTt be left With Mr. Bryant unlll AFTER d.
vorce or be handed back 3d-Nlrs. T. is 20 promise
that she will rot interpose 10 prevent divorce
from Pennsylvania Legislature. 4th-hr. r Wul
pledge he will give no publicity TO charges or eti-
mon V In the application, and Will prevent any no
or.hereaner. Also the application snail be esuched
in delicate terms, and contain 10 charges when may
be VI necessary to The obtaining OF the DIVORCE .
MI orc. then read the said paper II Is from ny.
BRYANT 10 Mr.. O'C., saying that he had seen me
charges 10 be offered 20 The Pennsylvania LeSlsla'
tuTe There is nothing 10 them as necessarily 70 IN
NV c1imnality on the part of wife the charges are
general Her ftencs have agreed It Is better 10 Lex
Forces. take divorce before the Pennsylvania Le'
eislature OF course expects maintenance
Witness-Bv Mr. Van B-There were several IN
,eryiews win Mrs F. as to the divorce do no!
remember that she sent Tor NE. nor the distinct con
yeIsation when she aLlAonzed Inc 70 make the
interview.
Mr. Van n AGAIN offered 10 read the note OF VI
Brvant TO MIR Sedswick. The Court dlsallowed.
W;,n,ss-Wss The original proposition acceded TO
by Mrs F. aud Lot changed After looking ~ my
notes of 9Th and ih cannot say as 20 date In winch
heard objection from her. had no cOHyerSatIO1