The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-01-11
NEW YORK HERALD, FRIDAY, JANUARY Il, 1856.

evidence Plaintiffs .Rdavt Of the % Of September 1885,
5h. Also in abandoning the proposition drst made BY
the Court and refusing to allow defendant to read
me para 90. ns Amdavit Indicated in bis onsr CO.
SD 81. The av one. of pa.s counsel .. .us..qu.u.
read u 10 o.
pIved the defendant Of the benefit Of his exceptions
Point !. The Court also erred in refusing 70 allow
decent letters to plaintiff found by him with sad Con.
suslo's letter. 20. l,167)
PENDANT to prove material contradictions TO plaintiff
affidavit Of December 20 1850. (Lzcsyton, TO-. LIS:
W1s en- vs. go Ks,ss : a. bu'a
also in excluding the testimony Of Meighan to the dis
orderly character Of plaintiff house (kcsption, 70.
Point H. Tho Court erred In allowing the plaintiff to
ccntradicAnn. Flowers statement Is to her age when
ton, 70. 1le2s) Whether her age when she went to
the house Of refuge In 1888 was as she stated TO-
ss the
ciuded BY her answer. (Greenl. Ev, saa9 Howard va
FONT is The Court erred in allowing the question to
Charles A. Lee as to the general character OF the witness
il ass r. before the trial (1eepon TO-
Point 49, The Court erred in allowing the question to
the witness Lee who only knew her in 1888 days.
and had not seen her far appears heard of her
since whether "from the degree and extent he had
found her character bad" he would believe her under
1,1o ".
bert VS.. shelcen, Is Barb. S. C R. 623.)
Point IT. The Court erred In allowing Doctor Hawkes.
10 testify AS TO s o lon q the Of as
Westiske vs. st. Law Mu ms G. Ia Barb. s. C. r. 2ia.3
Point 49, The Court erred m allowing Luther Hornton
to state his opinion to the class character Of the
house occupied by Caroline Ingerson Exception. TO-
There nothing authorize this testimony as that
Of an sSps Is pen I Congo,
Rank Pnrtn Thu had alw -
allow much more specific testimony to the character
of plaintiffs own house (folio ll7e)
y tending show Anna Flowers want of chastity pre-
vous to the with Howard to which she had
testified. xception. 70. 1925 jackson Osborn,
See the testimony admitted q Catherine Levins folio
1870, Of Hannah White (olio 402 of James Curzon
qcio 1,4o4), and of Bernard McCabe (olios LAOS to
Psnt 90 The Court erred in sustaining the objection
Of plaintiffs counsel to the Witness Grsnsey cac!af
sell for what purpose he had visited Mrs. Robinson
Deception. 70. 1,a55.) The objection put the
ground that it would degrade the witness.
The privilege Of refusing to answer rested the ability
Of The witness to that the would degrade
witness to his privilege and sustained his objection if
he svaed himself ofi The Court entertained the oppo
si,e opinion on this subject when similar question was
shaw; Gushing, so4, and cases oited.)
Point 21.-The court erred in allowing the witness,
Catherine Levns to state what the she used
to plaintrr en- telling her of the affair between Anna
and G11ss 70
her testimony by showing that she had previously made
similar statement the proof not admissible before
Cow 800; sprsgue vs. Caldwell, IL Barb s. G. SID; De.
shon Merchants In. Co., II Met. 1872 Robb Hack
ley, % Wend co. Dudley VS.. B0lles, "a Wend. 1857
Point o. The Court also erl ed in allowing the witness
Catherine Ievins, TO state what the plaintiffs reply
to her accusation against Anna Flowers Excsphon TO-
Kreeland Cow 469; Artcher VS.. McDufHe, s Barb. s.
C. l47. See also cases cited to point p
Point 49, The Court erred in ao ring the copy Of the
letter the deposition Of John W. Forney be
read in evidence, it did appear that the original
was lost or in whose possession it was or but that the
plaintiff with ordinary diligence might obtain it, (Ex-
Point Tho SQUIRT erred IN refusing to allow the de-
Exception fol- ,702 1,7l5) sIt sufficiently shown
that Mr. Bryant was negotiating between the parties
with Mrs. Forests knowledge" Go. Gle. See
Point 81
Point 25-The court erred in allowing testimony 60
to the jury TO the amount OF defendants property for
the purpose of enabling the jury to determine the amount
Of amony to which the defendant would be entitled in
the event q verdict was found in her favor.
reced to be tried BY jury By the special order under
which the parties proceeded to trial Fol So to 67)
Such issue could not be tried by jury either before
since the Co0e. 1t not among the issues which
the jury were summoned and sworn to try It was
sprung the defendant at the termination Of the trial.
JUDGED the defendant the question of the amount
aimony but calculated and used to confirm the in
srences sought be drawn from the testimony Of For
Eey folio 1436) that defendant corruptly using his
abundant means in conspiracy against his wes peace
and honor (see cases cited under Point 2. Meyers
Malcolm, 8 Hill 296, and cases cited)
Point g. The Court erred in awarding amony at the
rate OF 5000 year from the commencement Of the
action, (tolio 1909, Or at any rate whatsoever.
meeting and overcoming legal testimony upon the point
The issue was not properly submitted to the jury see
last point No legal testimony given upon It. Such
mony that the sum of II 500 had been paid to and
airy, 1852. (Fol 1,1s8.)
ney council extra costs counsel and expenses
under the pIetence VI alimony to the plaintiff An
animation Of the item Of 49, 50 directed by the judg
the 10Th Of February 1852 will show as the fact noto-
riousy was, that the Court did such allowance
No credit given for the 81 500 per paid quar-
1881 The Court must therefore infer that plaintiff
entitled to - 500 year while this suit pending
see az the fact was that the Court below deignedly
made decree presenting the plaintiff with 81 500 year
tor two years
new trial should be ordered with costs to abide the
event. VAN buren, ROBINSON,
Defendants attorneys
Mr. John Van Buren,, the part OF Mr. Forrest, occu
pied the Court the VII le day in his argument
Of the preceding points, In reading from the printed
case He iDduieed in some humorous criticisms upon
the rulings OF Chief Justice Oakley at the trial. and sub
med that Of them in direct contradiction to
others Mr.. Van Buren,, In substantiatng this portion
Of his argument referred and read from the pamphlet
report Of the trial subished by the law reporter Of
the NEW YORK Herald; he said he did not cite it
port Of the proceedings and the ruling Of the Judge
there reported showed the and the
on which the respondent based his motion for a new
tJial.
The argument was adjourned to Friday morning
Superior Court-Part Second.
Before Hon. Judge Duer..
HEAVY DAMAGES AGAINST RAILROAD COMPANY.