New-York daily tribune., 1859-07-08
CUPRFME COURT -rHEOOOkE SMITH,
Nesualurk DAILY Gribn,te
THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE
T. n, Edifo, Of The y. Y. Tribune.

T. n, ESifo, cr The n. y. Tribune
SIR. Most peop Of the many who took an intere't
in this somewl at celebrated case, have been under
the impr, scion that sirce the verdict in her favor
rendered by the Superior Court in 1852, Mrs Forest
had eI loved the alimony then awarded her--thres
thousand dollars per snnum. II appears, however,
from recent proceedugs that the lady has never re-
ceived any income a, oil from her late husbands
estate that up this time, as far az It's pecuniGy
Advantage is concerned, the verdict might equally
well for her have been rendered the other way. Nj.
Forrest appealed from the decision Of Judge Oakley
to tue Full Bench of the same Court, which in 1856
affirmed the previous judgment, but declared that the
Jury should not adjudcae as to the amount Of amony,
which to be decided by Referee to be sPPciotsd
by the Court ln pursuance OF this ruliog, Mr.. Alvin
G. Bradley was named as Referee, with instructions
20 hear evidence a. to the amount Of Mr.. Forests
property, and award as alimony onetbiri Of iu
yeaily income. In May 1889, the counsel for Mr.
Forrest. MI Charles O'Conor served notice for
Reference on the 9th Of June last whereupon tn,
counsel for Mr. Forrest, Mr. John Van Buren,, moved
for Commission to issue from the Superior Court 10
examine seyerty-four witnesses in California, wb'
could, as the petitioner sverred, prove th.: Mr.
Forrest has led in California; life Of ntemperano
and general immorsiry.
ING O-ttUNlbir bNJctl VI TINS oppt4Shbi'h N5S ~
mitigation Of elimony, as it is assumed the wife cos
duct should be taken in consideration when deermn-
il the amount to be awarded. On the other side i.
was ale ged that the whole matter rrelevni,
frivolous and yexatious 1t was ntmatod that the
attempt il purely device to create further delay.
and to oveiwheIm Mr.. Forrest With heavy lega, er
penses incident to issuing the commission. The nr
nerous charges Of similar character disproved "a
Al al txta1 "a, All IA
evidence of the probable nature Of the present
We are also informed that Mrs Forrest is entirely des
tute of means, and that her council have never re.
ceived any payment whatever. We can conceive the
ease Of a wife separated from her husband aud pend
ing litigation, lot in the receipt Of slimo,y driven b!
sheer necessity into is Of imprudenee or perhaps,
shame. In view of such result. finer intermedsp
conduct il 70 he taken into consideration in the fns
adjustment Of a,raony, It IS certainly by peean'p,
interest of tho husband, whatever the sacrifice Of h
orabe or manly feeling 10 deter tha, fna sdjustmeS
ss long as possible. We do lot imagine tha. NJ
Forrest is actusted in the he thinks proper
adopt, By any particular regard to the utenor eee
such successful precedent may produce upon %
cety at large but soceiy interested in the matte
TO juit that extent. fa wife, illireated by the hc
band to such degree to justify separation, mus
continue to bear that iltrestment, or accept the
tentative Of being compelled by legal shifts and evs
sions 10 wait decade, or more, before being able
enjoy the tangible advantage OF an award in her fsy1
il is highly desirable tha; every wife and mother
the land should understand it.
Mr. Forrest, by accumulation and professional IND
cone, has probably aired since 1872 rore th"
| double the SUN which would have been necessaEyv to
satisfy the original verdict and his property II gene
rally credited TO exceed halt million Of dollars. r."
decision of Judge Woodruff las to the grautiag to'
coumissiool having been given adversely, We hav
therefore less hesitation in laying the facts before tb
public in connected form. The truth is, neither NJ
Van Buren nor Ar Forres, stand before the works
very enyisbe light in the whole affair. The prer
ious uia lasted iorty days and was considered byS
| impartial persons fair and honest one. Bot ws%
sire to speak rather in behalf Of abstract justice h'
OF legal technicGltes. Ii a commission issue 20 CO
| iiornia, Why not one 10 Australia, Englaail Wa
not investigation of Mr.. Forests conduct siDcsS
trial II she is amenable is not he, also, All"
liable to err. Surely n,ne should know this be'N
than Mr. Forrest. Beside all this it is pretty geDefF
ly rumored and credited that disrespoCtul art.ce'p
| the prejudice Of Mrs Forrest, and which have cfs
iIaly appeared in newspapers % the Auan'1o gu
have been sent to San Francisco, backed AID aoc'"