The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1859-04-09

Tom. .ers are OF defence those
had strben os by an order OF Judge nsraham no
erciore moved t0at be now considered as GU, Oh tne
-xufe and Tho defendant should have the affirmative
and be permitted 10 open ,he case TO the jury.
Mr. Carpenter SAID that he hat served notice upon The
dsendans counsel waving the order for the defendant 70
Withdraw his second answer.
Mr. Van Barren remarked that not cnly was the waiver
made but made at the express request Of delen-
darts counsel.
Judge Futon said under the decision of the Court
Of Appears the ruling OF the Jooge Ill permitting the Sc
SOLO answer Withdrawal, was erroneous. The
pieadipss should stand they
pefeL dant excepted.
Mr. Gerard then put In their plea Of abatement which
was that there action for this same case pending
m eJnited States Court has been discontinue
ed He submitted that TIE defendant entitled 10 open
the he had aimitted the publication
Mr. Van Buren, sad that the suit id been discontinued
and the costs paid, that had been ruled over and
over that snit III the Uni ed states Couft Was 10
bar proceed ines ia State Courts and ciee rsd
Judge Hilton ora thick that under the nrst plea OF
abatemen, soioieut bar this sut; the pantln
had right TO waive rule made IN his iavo me court
shen said that plln III should have the affirmative
Mr. Van Buren, bep proceeded open tue case and 10
the which the Jury were 10 try Toe planhi
well known 70 them as prominent cflzen OF tnis
State and man of genius and talent in his profession
she defendant is proprietor OF newspaper called tue
Home vou mai. II viii appear that the plaintn was
married IN England - a lady 81 e9hs.uefaoN
personal attractions and that he returned to this country
with his wife, where nothing occurred 70 disturb nus 90
peace the END 81 ls4s they were not blessed
with chdren and much Ia each others society there
rohpg 10 disturb the Rnd, coraa love that existed
between them up 10 the spring OF loas, when Mr..
Forrest demonstrated against his wife keeping tue &C
quanance OF her ester (trs Voorhees, In May, 1sis,
Mr. Forrest Cincinnati accompanied by his wife and
while there Dir. Jamis formed Lneir acquaintance;
took place there which hrst aroused Mr. For
rests Suspicious Nj. Van Bufea then detailed the lead
ing occurrences which developed the trial Of the
divorce suit The OF Mrs Forrest having
Aeep found bv her husband standing bet ween Mr. jamie
soa's knees with his hand on her; OF the hnding
II the CoDsseo letter. the subsequent separation of Mr.
and Mrs Forrest OF M IS many acts OF kindness TO his
wife, which Afterwards used by the defendant ~
hbet the plaintiff He spoke vi Mr.. F's gong 70 reside IN
Philadelphia, and tue proceedings instituted by him be-
fore the Penpy vania legislature, and which for the
subjects Of the publication of which the plaintiff COM
PLAINS In that publication the defendant grossly falsed
those procesdpgsbe libel being, from beginning to end,
ated TO degrade and disgrace the plaintiff whom the
defendant represented without honor or character
II charged him Slh building mansion on the Hudson
and giving II lody name, that he invited people there
for the purpose manufacturing charges against them
1t charged him with endeavorlpg to procure divorce
from his wife III Philadelphia on evidence which
he knew TO be false, and causing the testimony
70 be published in paper Of acknowledged extensive cir
euation (the HElID) Ii also charged MIN Win procur
ing anOny TO be written 70 nure the charac
Ter Mrs Forrest The defendant the article invited
personal encounter with the pann and Mr.. Forrest
sought and assaulted him, for which Mr. Willis brought
actin damages ou that uial this pubicato
offered evidence show provocauoc but the Court
ruled that read them but should be made
subject Of another The jury that gave
S. 500 damages to Mr.. Willis and Mr.. Forrest
plaintiff in the present suit After some further remarks
the alleged libel read " the jury such portions of
the article as the plaintiff complains Of
William r. Blake, examined by Mr. Van Bdren-lien-
tAeo the writing OF Geo. W. Jameson ia document
produced Mr. Van Bdren did not yet offer 10 evidence
did try other cause here which occupied
another court some forty days.
John Livingston Commissioner OF Deeds OF the State OF
Peupsylvania, idenuded examinations that took
place before him 10 some proceedings then pending IN
PenLs lvana and Stated that he recoecs having Oh on
occasion waited IN room III the AAtor Louise Tor Mrs
Forrest and her lawyer.
MT Gerard objected. Mr. Van Buren, said that one
tie statements the libel that the proceedings be-
fore the Pennsy lyania Legislature were er pdrts.
Cross examned-The depossons were taken in the
AstoT House; Dir. Forrest was there IN person, ani
tbbk Mr.. Randall, a lawyer, from Philadelphia Nj,
Seogwick was also there; Mrs. Forrest was not
there: there was no counsel for her; don't think
there was any cross xl nination; Mr.. Lawson, a
friend Of Mr. Forrest was there and witness sealed up the
examinations directed them the Penhsyya Leglsla
ture, and handed tnt III to Sir. Lawson.
TESTIMONY Mr. FORREST.
Edwin Forrest then called and examined by Mr..
Van BuIen-I have resided in Philadelphia since June,
ls49.
O Were you married to Ca,harlne n Forrest
Mr. Gerard objected 10 the testimony; ne had de-
gre TO Fight the battle tween SIR Forrest and Mrs. For
in This between nr. FoFres' and Nc. Willis he
only engaged deepd the action against Mr. Wills
After acme sOment, the Court sad the question was
No, necestay il rs assumed that Mr. and Mrs Forrest
were
o Did an occurrence between Mrs Sinclair Mr. jamie
and Yourself ia Ma, ls4s, io Cncnns, lead to your
separation
dG; was Cincinnati 10 the month OF May, isls Mrs.
Sinclair Chen Ms Foues) va etn me- left my lo1g
iDgs accompanied by my friend, s. 3 smith, 10 meet an
appointment, which thought would OccJpy hour
returned Iabor Unexpectedly, and in going ino my room
Mrs Sac air standing between Of George
". JAMESON he Seated SOFA aud had his hands
ynon her uptson. Mis- SINCLAIR turned hurrlg1ly and
seemed confused Jameson was pale and slen asked
,~hat US ali ms about when Ms Sinclair c1nf,sadg
sac mar M Jameson Was exanla,ng he
a. nh,ennIosic.l deveIonsrnants - III the time
beIsved IN tboueb now Il seems iooredibe az she was
.,anang and no wa. seated on the snfa va mad an an
Eagement to pLrenOIosist, but Mr. Jameson sud
gave me some nj the time nut il did not ne
tie NV confidence in the honor of Mrs Sinclair. never
naked Jameson 20 dinner OF 70 DO anythiug for me aer
that incident IConsueo letter prodnoed1 O. Did you
take that letter from the possession OF Mrs Forresr
did in the month January 1849 Mrs Suclar attended
party given the OF her sister, Mrs. VOORHEES,
in the city Of New YORK, Mre. VOORHEES, person
sence OF Mrs Forrest I yas determined 10 rrove tho
character of Mrs. VOORHEES,; took the ley Of a
private drawer Mrs. Forests bureau, and there dis
covered bundle of letters which Mrs Forrest was In the
habit of carry ing about her in Cncnnat these letters
were in the handwriting of Mrs VOORHEES, amongst them
as one In The hand ri NO OF Iaieson. II has since beeo
called "the Consueo letter. perused the letter and !.