The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-06-12
The Forrest Divorce Case Again.
APPLICATION FOR A COMMISSION TO CALIFORNIA TO
TAKE EVIDENCE AS TO MRS. FORESTS CHARACTER
AND CONDUCT THERE.
Before Hon. Judge Woodruff.

AND CONDUCT THERE.
SUPERIOR CouRr-ePg1AI TERN.
Before Hon. Judge Woodruff
JrSg IL -Cathe,ine " Forrest u.s. Ellca Fj.72s- rns
application the Court 70 au.horizs COMMISSION
proceed 10 ,be city Of San Francico take oral
moDy In reference 10 the conduct Of Mrs. Forrest Whe
she was residing in California. Tho application based
petition Of the defendant alleging that he had good
TO believe that the plaintiff had been guilty Of
btua n,emperance, fornicaton and adultery, and that
proof thereof could be obtained If commission were
sent there to take oral testimony. In support Of this
petition the defendant referred to several silda-
Wits made by persons who had been residents Of
San Francisco speaking 10 The genera, reputation
which the psinn had there In rsbuttal Of this, the
plaintiff berself who then residing in Eogland made
an affidavit denying generally the truth OF the charges
ace ~ ainst her. Mr. Wilton, who erred as
OF The partes who could give evidence OF her moro
pety Of Conduct made on affidavit to the effect that
far as be knew she was good, vrIuors woman
These the 90 which came bet Ore the Court
Mr. OCon0r, for the paintn, suppress aif
oavi's which The petition reste5 srgupg that it
anOvel, daI geIous and IMPROPER practice " allow tue
character Of Iarty sant ~ be DETAINED by e. parse
stat meDts and That the testimony itself irrelevant
Mr. John Van BurtD, for the defendant argued 10
port Of the peton ana against the suppression Of the ALL
davis.
The Judge decided that the aIldavits which he was
asked 10 suppress we're simply coIrobOfave OF the state
meLts mace the petition I'll tee defendant They were,
Therefore, propy in the case, and The argument should
Zion spoiled for
Mr. Van Buren, proceeded to forth the reasons Why
such . commission asked for should granted.
Be alluded TO the fact that although the decree Of divorce
and order Tor anony made carly In 1852 the plan
TIL hid Dol tase asuree 10 have anony alo~ ed
her Until last May and ID. thai the defendant
nrst placed in posIton 70 60 into the question Of the
plan, conduct II bel un6spuied rule OF Law that
IN lasts Of divorce the amount VI aliDoDy would be
goysrDed among oor thu gs by the coDduct and
Of life Ct tho woman. Tue ordinary commss on, with
prepared questions, would not answer purpose DO
egned as Tie witLtsees TO Ce exsLe1 would naturally
DO VI Hing Witnesses and as the de endaut could
not know the proper questions TO De put ont did
Know the Dsnes oi the persons whom It might 0e
saiy TO examine. BE suod that The Of
TN was proper subject fo v,stgatun wa
10 1884, when the cisorce granted, particularly
the celxy was her oan fault. Nh
Nil OCoDor, in reply stated that the period which The
Woposed examination was TO that oct seec
1882 when the decree OF divorce orig nay gssuteu
ard 1e56, when sas affirmed by the Super Court aod
that delay was Lot To he ascrbld 70 The pantl
the effort OF the defendant TO have The reversed
II will be rem mbereo that when the divorce WAC grant
cd IN 1852 the plaintiff alto 81 geo year amoay
but when the Superior Court eene term affirmed INA,
Judgment the question of aimony was sent TO referee
Ibis the frs. movement since made that subject bu
there an affidavit Of Mr. n. Chase, the psill attor
hey, stating 'hal she always appeared desous Of having
the Meter conClud, d.
pecs.on reserved.