The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-03-04

nss shsn rs1ssssd The tssmosy rspudiassd the
Whole sssisastsD ~ - lsssiss HIN know what VS.
going 70 90 Counsel for u plainin has thrown ont
soas 'dsa thst When cse IA. stronger tina. another
sesrss Of hs nSs before sid bis hand In anger upon
been vrosgsd asd vho sror ger than another 70 do
IL be 70 pbysis ssd reduce himself TO the ordinary
strength Of The sshsri He (hr Van vas at q los
whore the great d6ersnce Of strength Vas exhi
bitsd, though M. Yerrsst dd take this man BY the
neck and dust his jacket before . number Of men
any Other injury on Sm-st.nd,ps there aud say.
ing Gentlemen, this 10 the ssduesr Of my Wife"
snA VIM. saying, TAKE him %, t.ss him on NO
lics,n and little Bat Of policeman whom they sxa'
mined the last TRIAL but have not produced on this
INT Van would cell the attention Of the jury 70:
he vss prepared 10 show that the committed
&C, ~ ~. e
Ne tsok the rule Of av 70 be- that the provocs
toD induces the act Il eompesnt for the jury to sAy
how far IL justnes the event reduces this damases
(if this for damages) and with this view he
proposed 70 read the pissdinss
Mr. eandford objected 70 the reading OF the peadings
a. unauthorised, tnprsper, and unprecedented
Mr. Jordan also objected 10 their going over the trial
After come discusseu between the c,unss the Court
raid he had looked Into the PeAdings and he had no
doubt the publication wes not ed@ssihs; y vsIsso
not be given In evidence and could mot be read 70 the
jury
that evidence q the In this case ought 70 be
admitted.
The Court he'd no impression 90 strong would not
cation, which s said to have existed for four
nve months snteior could not be given a. astacaticn
The Court ruled that the pssdings could not Be read
and Mr.. Van Buren, excepted.
Mr. Van Iuren then TO address the jury and
esd that under the ruling Of the Court he would under
TO prove in Qualification with view 70 sho~ reAson
Tor the mtaseion Of damages 1t would appear In evil
they were permitted to produce tho Testimony
that an intimacy subsistsd between the wife Of the de-
fendsnt and The plaintiff in this from 1914 to ths
time Of the trsnsaction that that intimacy commenced
without the slightest suspicion the part OF the defend
ant and that he had suspect fidelity OF
bis wife Perhaps 1t was impossible TO imagine more
happy couple than Mr. and Mrs Forrest up To ISl9
that time discovery was made rot with references to
MT Willis but with another person, and shortly after
an allowance Of $500 year II. tE.n ret ed to pbiIa
delphis where he commenced proceedings for divorce,
and took his residence at the hou.o OF his sister In
February 1861 he learned for the fret time that
and stealthy viste made by Mr. Willis to the house
OF Mrs Forrest and though the evidence he then recev
Willis he met him Ia the street cautioned him a. to
bis Wits TO his wife. They would show that while Mr..
Ferrest was under the natural excitement Of this
so far from excusing himself from the charges
made by Mr Forrest against him ia the proceedings in
PhiadslIha was but tcandalous and scurrilous chag
ing Mr. Forrest with conduct only base but holding
him to yidcue in reference to his conduct home
and abroad and also in himself and his wife
stated that there superiority on the part Of Mrs
Forrest ever her husband which forced her into other
society But this ne (Mr, Van Burcn) thought was
nerioriy which the lady should have discovered many
years before This the subject OF be-
fore another court, which did resu in inducing the
jury to behave the facts but God forbid that another
jury should declare that such conduct not jusiG
cation for the act here charged agangst the defendant
Mr. 6sIdford here object to the counsel wander
ing from the preeent issue.
Mr.. Van Buren said, the counsel has, doubt most
happy way Of expressing hm,e but these repeated in
terIuptiens OF council was rather too much He (Mr.
Van pre- posed to show not only that this publ
cation was made but that the same intimacy kept
up between Mr. Willis and Mrs Forrest from the time it
made to the time Of the transaction In question
suppose should appear that he struck OF toe jury
10 left there would the jury not say this outrage'
But what Is the reasen Of 1t? They would desire
toknow the cause Of the outragths Of the
cfence-and the court would that nothing could be
more correct than the introduction OF the testimony Of
the libel and the occasion which led to the assault
I'd McNullen, l49 which action for assault and
battery where the defendant proved that the plaintiff
given "frock patterns" to different gentlemen which
was considered injurious to the character Of the lady
Also to Sd Maccords reports, 60 Rhodes Blunt. But
perhaps the which the to tho present
one, and which, indeed be could moi distinguish from
II. vss Darlington and Paine, GIL Frazer the Hon
Gian'ly Berkeley and others, decided in 1880 There
wa similar evidence in Watson aud Frazer in the
yolume II Wspdall, II; Attn Wendall $3.50; 18th wenda
eco; and lat starkis SANDER TAO He (sIr Van
would efer 10 prove that, in May 1850 Mr Wis sent
for MIS- FoIres-thst she came TO his housethat she
coming room in his shirt sleeves and was heard
bidding her good right Suppose these facts had been
10 Mr. Forrest and then the publication
Isducipg Mr. Forrest would jury say that such acts
would furnish no justification for ssesut Or would
jury not ray that it qured the defer dant to
that which ne ought to have in cted The witnesses
for the paint correct that cbastement was
ference to the mode which It was done Iii one
Of the curious things that he had been able
~ his ana II.
rate should turn himself to the pursuit Of making his
paper the vehicle Of SANDER and himself the object OF
ssfault. 1t s the eddest way OF making livelihood he
had heard or And this doae by champion Of the
fair sex-a gentleman who invites attempt to punish
hm-for in the publication which he made he signs his
individual name TO It, in order that he may avoid
probability. Why, the inference was, that he would
bring the defendant before criminal court and
dollars for the chastisement Mr. Van Buren, then
made humorous allusion to Mr.. sandford's de-
for this precauon be reason; he never saw the
necessity for counsel going armed II he (Mr Van
would be to shoot himself daughter He never dared
carry pfol or Penknie or stick; al he wanted
was precisely what Forrest did not wish to lot Wills do
Qsuehter)- 10 the the defendant did not
say to the plaintiff, Here am,, for u he did, he
punist msnt en- him He tHr Van Buren, weua now low
proceed 70 call Witnesses and after the jury heard him
the verdict with the plaintiff far those who have
lien on the recovery will allow them to do the jury
would .ay what the amount Of damages .hould be.
Buren, and dePosed-I lived with Mrs Forrest did not
live with her in 1894 and 1876 but in the habit Of
calling there called there couple Of days before she
went TO Eusope, in 1914
Q.-Do you rtcolleot Mr. Willis calling there shortly
before Mrs Forrest went to Europe
MIR. SANFORD wished to know the object OF this
Mr. Van Buisn-I propose TO show BY this aad other
wntetes, criminal intercourse between Mr. Willis
the deendants wife, commencing in 1874 and continued
until May, 1860.
Mr Sanford had objection to their going into the
testimony the Court think this the occasion 60 into
thar trial provided that the broad and infamous ander
II Lot authenticated, should be visited with additional
dan ages fer the publication of those charges
MIR. Van Euren-The defendant WAS prepared to meet
TIE result and If he was not confident Of being able to
prove it. be would offer 1t One jury had passed upon
the CAGE that, however, IL no reason that the
should not BE- tiled by another; ard then 1t in
ton with that was recently decided aud here II
Is controversy with mAp--or, more properly Speaking
with who is not q woman, daughter
Mr. sspdford repeated his oer as 70 the admission Of
the testimony, and the conditions on which hs would