The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-02-01
THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE.
Motion for Stay of Proceedings.
Superior COurt-Speclai Term.
Before Chief Justice Oakley.

|
cree be forthwith ssded upon the verdict rendered by
the jury MIR Van Buren, appeared to ottaia stay OF
proceedings with view to hle bill OF exception aud
to argue the case before full court
The Chief Justice said he hal looked into the pro-
visions of the Code and found that the COURT might either
perfect the and allow the parties to appeal or
he might suspend the judgment until the bin OF excsp
tions was argued Under all the circumsances of the
to be entered and proceedings be yed until the d..
csion Of the iu court given the argument the
| bill of exceptions. He thought II proper TO notice
| mil statement Shich had been made in quar-
| te,s, to the elect that the leugth of tai; tria
was attributable IT, to the provisions Of the Code
The Code bad nothing to do with it The trial had been
conducted in conformity With tho old law. rhe ength
tf tina trial was attributable to First
number OF questions involvedSe several adGiteriss
| charged raising many issues; and secondly ths
latitude allowed counsel who introduced great deal o.
irrelevant and exraneoun matter, without objection
from the opposite side. He had called the attention OF
the counsel 70 decision "nicn had hsan recently made
in the Court OF Appeac aud which was very much op.
posed to oil former decisions 1t M that sisastana
ing divorce had been granted. wife retains he rsat
Of dowry up to the time of the decree. Inarard1g vi.
r.ony, tie Court has regard the property Of
wife well as that e tn, husband; aud il has besn the
right to dowry; and his present impression was that in
the plaintiff here did not that de-
eEdant should be at liberty to apply to modify the
amount os aimopy As TO the expenses, there
be an established practice ruled by the Chancellor that
the alimony is to take effect from the commencement of
the tut without regard % the voluntary payments made
by the husband These idess given for adoption
bnt are merely thrown out for the consideration fcoun
/
view 70 stay Of proceedings.
Mr O'eonor said in relation to the observation that
his Honor thouga it proper 70 settle The decree WITH
view astay Of proceedings thai he supposed the Court
means apply the rule in this case rs would be
| adopted in the collection OF a debt
Chief Justioe-the idea meant to convey IS tha, it
| should be perfected in all respects asd entered.
MIR. conor--hn order might be given the Clerk
docket the decree did not resn to sey thai
there WAS desGe the part ol Mr. Forrest +, part
with any OF biz property within this State indeed there
Is The strongest affidavit record to the effect that
/ 4 lpfa n NJ inps
rot stand here in the position OF merchant, but as
retired gentleman Of fortune or member Of the bar,
anu hot subject TO chances of failure IL would thara
fore seem IN act Of over caution and would not faoih
tate anything TO make any rule upon this point; but
the Court thought proper to order that the ticket
should not be docketed It might. at the tine
dee that no membranes should be permitted the
1 property Of the defendant He (Mr. OC) wiling
10 consent that the judgment should be entered but
that docket should not be struck ia relation to the
mtthod OF making the allowances, he said that the
| part Of the Ilan'n they had gone the idea
OF giving creoit fer what paid during the pro.
gress OF the suit following the decree in the Of
| BLrr vs. Burr. As the decree was now drawn, it
| would make difference OF $l5o0- would m Ike the
creoit aneunt to that SUM. Nothing had been
the sl 50o nothing had been allow for tho expenses
o. the suit: and this restraint should be modified 70 the
extent OF allowing somethirg towards that Ths ex.
pepse5 Of tie plaintiff had been very greatwitnssses
had been brought from dstaucc-hey had had 20 ne
q them IN attendance for long period and the trial
h3i gone over nearly forty days; il was case unparat
Iced. He did not now make any references 10 what
Mrs. Forrss. shord allow her counsel but the other
! teh~aphsho;el bila, all 9ddei-hrorght the amount
g considerable FCE, With 7sspect aestioas
amony ard dowry, he suggested that II ~ any time
MS Forrest sboud become entitled 70 dover on the
Rros Of the dseEdsnt the parties could make ap2
CT sinony This ciinony Is liked upon the l3west pos
si6s amtuDt- Is 1xed withous any positive knowledge
q Ar forfeets real estnte--t is azed without any
knoNledge ri a Ct his personal estate. Mr. O Jonoc
submitted that every enc Of Eld and equitable iustcs
woud be accomplished by allowing Mrs. orTe6t il she
ever shs have the right double portion the a,moBy
aaa The right to dowfy AS respect, the SO Goa year
aLd Ae coaiipgeDt enjoyment o the dover light there
srd demanding COVER; Int bis honor nigh, have uni
'isnt tath in his success aaca he (tIr
Ie0ef) Eoped would be tax cislnLtor is proper al
juocstitn.
Mr Van Burep 5ail that the objection to the entry Of
sng decree 1t ALL what he whod to ca the attention
q The couit to The great diGcuty i, that ..
psftss Is AZ liberty 20 IDairy during the n1eocy of
hs case 1t l. fuggested that il she cid 80 it would De
At hri peii but What peril Toali hsre BE- ii she is
MARY charge hec nams il they could baisvs the
Iuniie sources Of intelligence, and rAa play bills she has
other SIDE thet the verdict i, the Of these p.osed
gs and the rest Is formGiiy bus he way
aietmrity which would b. attended with such disas-
beneerved on the defendant to OF the provisions
owhich he ohjscied In the fret place asto ths provision
which makes the Court tx the amount ct Amony; en-
y tnen goes on to provide that the plaintiff should b. at
liberty 70 marry agair ana hat the defendant saoud b
prohibited from marrying The piaiatfh to the
Juiy on he amorst OF almony and the defendant
oepteJ he oiiePd no testimony. and made no obaerva
nofs 70 te Jury on Il and they retu71ei verde, Of
S5 100 Che gue.ti3n H. whan should the aumony
commence? THIS Ulversel rule ia Eoeaud aus in this
country until tie cafe II Hurr and BGrr that tae
aEmofy thcnd commence from the date Of ta' deCre,
tlG The ruling Of the Chancellor s spch IS hsrjy
leave discretion in this This the ooutt. ~auli
sse IL Ghtlfcid nari,ges end Divorces" Js3 apd A
Gaze ties citvd froIa IL HaszsIdss Ecclesiastical
Reports hir. Van Blren then detail 4 Tho circrm.
stances q The oase q Burc which was o. craay
ara bIttslity. ant ctntenicl that there wle no
parallel between that aul this. la that case. too
m allowance was made Tp3snfe it. whish was
Iiairiia in the rlesent case, has had during
he tendency of this suit mast hbgd aloSluce,
when she las never applied - lave increased 1r
Van BGfyn continued 70 couteDd thst there w2s
a pFoFrtty Ia King that this allowance sAoal Go
nehcs =, ne btsianins q the fut and also sos
~'t1 hat she shcu'd n,t get 1t unt she rsu0uucts
hl night 70 the cowry In regard the aliraa.iJn
h property, there was no idea The part OF Mc for
rtssa ellrg Tit = uasSleebe y le had an desre
to dispose of it, lie then conten1ed that hc aowance
voe pfeposserous n the case CT Barr and Barr he
dfcTte Yindctive punishment for the brutality al
the bushard ard If the Court would read the o2in9n
o The minority Of the Court of Errors it would zee
before, TO The sympathy for females Mr. Van Bursn rs
ierred 10 Hill III, Lawrence and Lawrence. 81 Peck.
lord The cages in Which this proposition has been
vile 70 tie husband hicr Burr had brought her
baId $500, which, with interest al the time of the
case shsre the wife brought no property to the
lusband vac the allowance Of one third of the income
given. More than Mr Forests income, and double what
hac been agreed upon BY the parties has sen allowed
The plaintiff HIS property at Fonhl which has been
es MATED at 5000 IS an ircumhrance and expense
TO him-ykds him nothing and the defendadant in his
answer places bis nccme at lees than 81 Coo. lie then
submitted that Mrs Forrest beng single and
without chldten S. 500 year wss sufficient for her
lie then referred to the opinion Of Judge Duer in this
Gaze which corcludes thus;- do think that tn,
utfencan can be Justly required to any further
sdarees to the plaintiff TO enable her 10 sustain ha ex
rerses of the litigation In which they engaged The
arnus sum ot 1900 in quarterly payments regard
being had 10 bis fortune and her wanstt to me
is an ample and liberal allowance not merely
for her ususl support but to proy3e for the extra
ordinary charges TO which she is subject: but IL il
sha hereafter appear TO be insufficient the court upon
arroper application and proper evidence would not re
itse o direct the payment OF such further shall
be proved to be necessary lie also referred he
opinion CT Judge IdmcndS la which that Justice stated
that the defendant had made ample provision for his
wiie Alter scme further observations Mr. Van Burtn
'nhmittd that he decree for amony should be settled
~ the Court at $3.50 or 81 most 81 600 aud la no
event thou!d IL exceed that sum- Ho thcu proceeded
70 argue FOR stay OF proceedings. lie did not wish
lave The deendait embarrassed by right Ct dover
len upon his estate II ths Cout. ruled that the pay
~ :. L. l -. ..urn.. a l-..- -