The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1876-04-12


10 be tried by those who regard me with tho least
measure OF good will lf tricrs be selected
be persons not concerned IN publishing the article
above mentioned, and not themselves persons
OF very decidedly bad reputc. wish that your com
mittee, who may have charge VI the premises, may
invite the two New York journalists who have pub
hshed these charges TO UNDERTAKE. The prosecution
against II they will employ counsel and produce
witnesses bind myself pay all OF thcir ouays for
counsel lees or other expenses that may be aowef 10
them by your society, or by the body deciding the
and pledge myself never 10 give evidence. or
treat as an offence, any act they may perform or Ill
win they may display in the prosecution. though
license IN respect to future publications by them IN
newspapers But n these two journalists neg
iest me INVITATION when snai DC .nus
their charges before the tribunal selected, will GER
family after the determination OF these proceedings
resort us against hcm u such methods OF redress as
be practicable account OF what they have already
done
As article in question, will say that nothing
viley false than II IS n its whole tenor and all
its details well be imagined in nothing that
teral any inculpaon OF myself IL
the slightest color OF truth.
now proceed 10 relate all circumstances connected
with the business N question which can conceive
might DO useful in guiding an honest and enlightened
judgment TO sound conclusion touching the charges
preferred against me.
About the year lS!3. . judgment having been rcn-
dered In the Supreme Court on report Of referees
against Mr.. Edwin Forrest the eminent tragcda his
attorney retained me 20 prosecute us counsel in his be-
half writ OF review | conducted the business, and
the judgment reversed IN Tho Court Tor tile CorFcc
ton OF Errors Forrest vs.. Kssam HIPS Rep. 463;
5. ., 25 wendch's Rep, 65lL had seen Mr. Forrest
after his success in that cas-, he gave mo
In tho street gracIous bow; beyond this
any OF hts family or friends prior TO my interview
with Mr.. Parkc Godwin and Mrs.. Forrest hereinafter
mentioned. The case Of Forrest vs. Nissan out
OF the circumstance that Mr. Forrest had provided his
able aud brilliant freni William Leggctt, with CON-
Portable dwelling IN the country. The testimony pre-
scented Mr.. Forrest in the most captivating light: his
blOgrnphcr VIII doubt consult the record When
IN the first week OF January, 1860 Mr. Parkc Goodwin
I'll then total stranger TO mo, called Al my Office. in
company with Mrs. Forrest, whom no introduced 10
me client regarded Mr.. Forrest very gener-
o"s man in the disposition Of his money All passion,
excitement prejudice that conflict may have gene.
rated having long ceased Will say that
cannot recall any tact known to satisfactorily
proved that nclines me at this time 10 think differ
entity Of him.. At The interview just mentioned the
lady informed me that She and her husband were
living apart; that they had agreed upon permanent
separation, and that she desired my services as
sci in adjusting tho terms and experimenting amy
neediul papers or proceedings. ! was not willing 70
have any controversy with Mr. Forrest. Besides
had two years been released from advocacy
for husband IN very disagreeable divorce case,
and had then determined never again TO be con-
ccrncd In any such controversy; but adjusting
the terms OF an amicable separation did not conflict
with these views was impress ed, and perhaps may
say moved, by Mrs. Forests very amabc dcport-
ment together with a real fsncicd resemblance in
her frank countcnance TO my nearest ana dearest
kinswoman. then long departed | learned from
her that some Kind Of an undefcnded divorce
contemplated but her ideas concerning its nature
were quito indefinite She did not suppose that, in
obtaining It, there would be necessity OF ilnpcach-
ing her purity; was she willing 10 acquesce In
amy such imputation Forrest Divorce Case, PIP.
aOi 3Os 3l9 ISL 2s3 2j6 257.) In the attcmp, al q
settlement thereupcn made my intercourse Was, bo-
hcvc, wholly with Nr. Theodore Scdewck since de-
creased aud possibly, one Of his professional associ-
ates also since deceased We did not agree aud about
the end Of January, $780, preparations were made by
Mr. Forrest to obtain divorce from the Legislature OF
y 36L) In March, 1850 Mrs. Forrest presented 70
that body protest against any action by II IN tue
Il Was extensively published; and, II the
newspapers OF the time be relied upon
expressing the public sentiment, II won for the
lady almost II not quite vcrsally golden opinions
(sce same case, y 579) Although Mrs Forrest did
not appear on Mr. Forests legislative applications
aud declined to examine the witnesses produced
By him IN New York. these applications failed. Same
case, PIP 30S 300)
The Pennsylvania Legislature adjourned in May
Philadelphia court for divorce in August OF that
year. tSamc case. PIP 80, IS TO ISL Two three
anG made to me certain remarks which | cannot say
were very offensive but thought the Interview placed
!. out Of my power 70 decline Or retro IRON
the advocacy OF his wifc's side in the
controversy II she saw 1T to retain me- have some
times thought that but for this circumstance would
have acted for her any OF the Judicial proceed
inss in this State US had absolutely determined to
avoid all such business; but am not of hat
IL reply 10 their letters, ccrresponded with some
oi the Pennsylvania Senator's l had thus committed
myself as an advocate Tor Mrs. Forrest and had adj
vanced $500 in expenses attendant upon my
VI ncr, and some cannot retro IRON q cause be-
heved to DO Just alter, In even limited way,
cspousing IL.
on september = 1850, Mrs Forrest commenced an
action Mr. Forrest the Supreme Court tins
State Tor limited divorce, and soon after obtained
therein injunction restraining tie prosecution OF his
Philadelphia suit On November TO- 1850. sLc sued
him in tho New York Superior Court Tor absolute
divorce. on the ground OF nndciy ln the latter case
he recrimnatcd, and these cross actions or issues
tried before Chief Justice Oakley and special
jury during the court days between December Is,
Ian, -
rendered Tor Mrs Forrest She CLAIMED
aiinony a. 5000 per annam and the Jury
TOOK Exceptions and appealed to tie General Term.
which, July ~ 1856. affirmed the DIVORCE but mold
INK that u was not within the jurys province to nix
tho amount OF the alimouy referred that subject
ALVIN G. Bradley as referee. Forrest Case, 5a0)
On December l. 1852 Mr.. Bradley reported that ali.
inony should DO allowed from tho CONNIE ncemcnt OF
the action ut the higher rate Of 81 600 per annum
Forrest Case, p ST. Tho report was confirmed by
the Court, and proper credits being allowed Tor inter-
mediate payments to hcr the balance then due for
arrears was adjusted Ut S3j, sos. Nearly $1,000.
la addition, were rlowcd Tor taxable costs in her
suit and judgment was entered her favor fer these
sums June = 1860 Il orrcst Case, p l,0U5 Mr.,
Forrest immediately Appealed " tho General Term
where tho Judgment was affirmed on December !. 1851
fofrcst Gaze, PIP LOIS. loslL He then Appealed to
The Court OF Appeals where the judgment against him
vas again affirmed December 81. 1862 Forrest Case.
y. !. 3S9 10Th y. Y. Rep, p SOIL.
Mr. Forests surct,cs the appeal declined TO pay
aud Judgment recovered against them On thci-
undertaking ocobcrs, 1888 They then appealed TO
affirmed November ~, 1855; and their turthcr
appeal. final and irreverslbic judgment gwen
against tncm in the Court OF Appeals, in september,
1867 Forrest VS.. Havcrs, IS y. y. Rep, 4C9l
When her SUIT commenced, IN 1850, Mrs Forrest
was living apart from her husband on allowance VI
$1,000 lcr annum, voluntarily made to her by him.
This he continued TO pay until the verdict rcn-
dorcd against HIM IN January. 1857; he never aitcr-
watds paid her anythin except on Judicial copusion.
From August 1, 1882 until May .. lSGO, he pad
her under orders OF the Court $500 per part Of
the time und 1850 per month Tor the residue forrcst
Case, lUC5 When tie judgment OF the supreme
rendered IN June, 1so0 he compelled equatsy
10 secure to her the annuity oi 81 900 annum then
aludgcd ~ her AS permanent alimony aud thence
forth until his death, November 49, 1872 he paid
TO her accordingly. Forrest case PIP. 1J05. 1t66b
IL viii be seen that the arrears adjudgcd Mrs.
Forrest on June =, 1860, termed her entire demand
against her husband aud that um could
iucicas II. surprise may therefore be excited by
the TACT that GU November L., ls6s IN closing tho
business Mr.. Forrest was obiised To pay the large
sum when her attorney then received The CIR
cunsancc Is easily accounted for AFTER the recovery
vi June =, lsdO Mr.. Forests persistent resistance
cd ! seen. the recovery OF five xubso