The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1856-01-11
THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE.
Superior COuxt-General Term.

Superior COuxu-6oner0l VeTms
Hon. Judges Bosworth and Woodruff presiding.
MOTION FOR NEW TRIAL IN THE FORREST DI.
v0RcE CASE.
JAN. 1ocatharne N. Forrest, respondent, Us. Ed,ein
Forrest, al'eom.-This . motion for n trial,
points of law raised by the defendants counsel.
The action was commenced by the service Of summons
on the 10th OF November 1850. copy complaint
served the 22d Of November 1850 The of the
defendant served the 17tn Of December 1885, and
the reply served on 2lst OF December 1850. The
Court by order dated the oath Of December $780, settled
the issues and directed that such issues should be tried
BY jury.
The issues tried before jury In December, 1851
and January 1852 and the jury having the 18th of
January, 1862 rendered vercict substantially for the
plaintiff all the Issues, judgment entered under
the direction Of III. Judge who prssidei at the trial
pealed from that judgment 70 the general term.
The complaint tPage alleged that the plaintiff inter.
London In England defendant afterwards and before
the LIST Of January 1898 moved to and settled in tn
state Of New York. and that they had both remained
and still citizens OF this State that the plaintiff
naturalized a citizen at the suggestion and uncer the
direction Of the defendant That she ut the time OF
commencing her action resident and inhabant Of tbs
city and county Of New York.
It alleges that defendant had committed adultery with
several females mentioned in the complaint That FIVE
years had elapsed since plaintiff had discovered
such adulteries or any of them had been COMM ted
and that hsy were so committed without the consent
connivance. privity, procurement Of the plaintiff
That the defendant owned Ia amount OF real and
personal property Of the value Of 500 Co., and had
dant had thleatened and plaintiff apprehended personal
violence.
might be dissolved and ter allowance to be made
chageable the real estate Of the deendan and for
injunction restraining the defendant from ncumbering
dsposng of his real estate and from molesng her. and
for a writ Of ne Great re ps'9lica
and that defendant removed to the State Of New York
May 1888 That the plaintiff naturatized CHI
at the tire alleged Defendant also admits that he
the real estate mentioned in the complaint and that
It'll worth not to exceed $4,000 and that his nco
from his property is not to exceed 900 year. but de-
mics every other allegation in the complaint. 1t also
ieges that the plaintiff had committed adultery with
several men nae ntioned in the complaint.
The reply sgs ~ denies s each and every allegation IL
been ignorant and unsuspcous OF any uncbaste i'm
modest conduct aud had implicit and fall belief in her
POINTS FOR APPELLANT.
Point l. The Superior Court of the city Of New York
has no juI isiiction in actions for divorce.
The jurisdiction In proceedings for divorce of the Ecc
ss,cal courts and Parliament of England vested in
the Courl Of Chsncery Of this State Greenl 42s CHI
go; Or 1918, 1877, 200 Laws, 1924 2as, sec 2; r.
:. la4 BuItis vs. Burts, Hopk. 557.)
That jurisdiction specifca transferred to the Su
preme Court by the Judiciary ac DAVIS 1917, p 1923,
sec 49, and the Legislature intended, by the
80 of the Code Golfer the supe Tor and other local
courts any other than general jur dicaon in common
law proceedings at law ard in equity. The Supreme
Court could eDy be ousted of this special jurisdiction in
proceedings for DIVORCE by express words irresst
IDLE plication. (Ames Blunt s. Paige 49, King
koehd,Ie caral Company, Eng; Law and Ed. 24l VIII
J
Point 9 The plaintiff Improperly permitted to read.
the trial copy of what purportd to be petition Of
1859 without proof that the papers from which il
eoeied VISA an original signed by him; dol 12 lal,
This Incompetent testimony being culat I'd to make
impression the minds OF the jury and to influence
their let trial should for this cause be grant
ed. Weeks lawrence, Barb $780, Dresser Aims
worth Barb 619; Boyle Coluan, Ii Baro. s. C. 49,
"A, and cited; Worrall Parmelee CONS. 521)
Point 8 The question asked Of the witness, Christiana
Underwood.
went to Mr. Iawson's office o. 20S). was improperly al
lowed Exception, same folio) 1t was irrelevant and
The plaintiffs counsel did not undertake or suggest any
intention to render it material by the otner
Point The Court erred In allowing the question be
parentage of her child. Exception 70. 378 l. The testi
mony inmate ial and irrelevant except far it
ing the commission Of specific immoral act. Corning
Va. Corning Seid. 104 Jackson vs.. Osborn, Wend.
,55s; Lehman vs. People, Cous 3so) 2. The question
enaed to degrade the Witness and the Judge erred in
refusing instruct the witness that she bound
to answer. (see case to point No.
Point The Court erred In refusing to allow the plain
tiff to show the dissoue and hbidnous conduct Of tn,
plaintiff mentioned in the offer $685. and in de-
other than those with whom she Was charged wish
adultery inadssi,le Exception, folio 554 These
proxmae acts tending to show the adultery charged
Point g. The Court erred in allowing the question to
the witness Jsmes lawson, whether Mrs. Underwood at
office the first day Of February, 1885, then rst
municated to him anything respecting Mrs. Forrest (x
The conversation which on the eross-examinaHon Of
Mrs. Under wocd 1t elected that she then had with
Mr. lawson was xhSy ,tssal upon the questions
directed to any other conversation at any other Time
(Greenl. Ev 44s; Howard City Fire ms Co. DEMO
oo2 is evident this esimony was introduced merely
for the purpose Of showing her pecunary Necessities
and thereby casting stain upon her character (see
eases referred 10 under point I'D
z, DlaintiH'A
counsel to read to the jury the plaintiffs own letter TO
chs n sot.s to o s
Cow, 45e) (ee also cases referred to under Point H.
Point 8. The Court erred in allowing the plaintiffs
plaintiff in reply. exception folio s1s) 1t was wholly
irrelevant and immsteria Mr.. La waon, the negotia
ss4 COZ, eos He disavowed any authority from defend
ant 70 write this letter Foos 49, ele) (see cases re-
Point o--rhe court erred in allowing the plaintiffs
counsel to reed plaintiffs rejonder to Mr. Iawsons let
ter. Exception, 70. 6l9) Even If the defendant
cha1geable with the statements in Mr. Lawsons letter, ii
did authorize the reading of his reply ee authori
ties to point q also to point I'D
Point 10The court erred in refusing to allow the de-
tendan read in evidence the letter marked exhibit Az
addressed to Corsueo, TO- og4 to 1907 at the stage
TO- M vs. Ts Con- sur
CESS Burgess, Hsgg Con- 234, 8. Grant Grant,
Curtiss, o. 66 Hamerton VS.. Hamerton Hagg Fec.
r. g. Tucker Tucker, ii Jurst 1893. Page vorce,
The evidence showed that this letter in the hand
WIlIDg OIL Geofge JhmlebOn (iO tnAt In january,
1649 this letter from Jameson had been sent to plain
tiff TO- 52, and found by defendant in her possession,
in private drawer Of her bureau that it contained mat
ter which had caused defendant to threaten separation
that when she discovered that defendant had got
it, she had on her knees begged him not to expose
her 60. 1867, and immediately afterwards sat
down and wtose private letter to Jameson on the
subject ITO. 1906 262 And in relation to Mr.. Godwns
Lending def ndant George Sands Novel, "Consuelo"
plaintiff stated to Mr. Goodwin, that defendant had not
got il to read but that II was shout foolish letter
had rummsged her drawers and fonnd some letters"
This letter. answering all these descriptions, shown
to been in DEFENDANTS possession and exhibited
the proceedings before the Pennsy Legislature
two years prior to the trial, Ito. 4l4)
These uncont addicted facts being established the de-
PENDANT was entitled read the letter in evidence to
jury Independent Of its competency in other respects
it WAS admissible confession of particeps crimnis
Qoynter on Marriage, 1881
Point 1.-The DEFENDANTS counsel produced an afi-
davit made by him the 18th Of November, 1850 in
suit In the Supreme Court betwee these parties