The sun., 1897-03-14
".

In a chapter devoted to the Forrest divorce
case tho author points out the extreme folly OF a
lawyer permitting himself to be overruled by
client in the conduct OF important litigation. 1t
will bo remembered that Mrs. Forrest demanded
divorce from hcr husband. Edwin Forrest, the
eminent tragedian, on the ground OF adultery.
He In his answer, made counter charges against
her. During the interval between the com.
mencement OF the suit and tho trial much tcsti.
mony against Mrs. Forrest had been taken in
different States Of the Union. Some OF this tcs-
timony was very gross, and, II proved, would
have blasted her reputation. The issucs en-
bracing charges and counter charges OF adultery
canie on for trial in December, 1881, in the Su.
pcrior Court OF the City OF New York before
Chief Justice Oakley and jury. Charles O'Con.
or. counsel for Mrs. Forrest called as first wit.
ness tho defendant himself and asked, II
at any timo since his marriage he had been
guilty OF Illicit Intercourse with certain actor.
John Van Buren, counsel for Forrest. objected
TO the question, on the ground that the defend.
ant wnsnot bound TO answer u question which
might incrimnate himself. The Court sus.
taincd the objection. and tho witness declined
to answer. Thcrcupon OConor, on behalf OF
the plaintiff without producing any sufficient
proof OF tho charges against Forrest, rested tho
case. Mr.. Clinton points out that. had Van
TO render verdict against the plaintiff. Mrs.
Forrest. the motion would have been grant; cd, and
that would have been the end OF the case. This
was the course which Van Burcn himself is said to
have desired to pursue. Forrest, however, would
not consent; he was eager to crafty his fierce
hatred of his wifc by introducing agains; her the
incrimnating evidence which he had been so
long collecting. The counsel yielded TO his client
and permitted the case to proceed. Mr.. Clinton
holds that, In thus acting. Van Buren was
without excuse. Hc might as well have allowed
the defendant. at the close OF the evidence to
address the Jury instead OF himself. A lawyer,
IN Mr.. Clinton's opinion. has no right to abdcato
any part Of his Office In the conduct OF a case
and to shelter himself behind his clients judg-
ment. lie may sbdicate altogether but he has
no right to abdicato pccemeal. Van Buron
should have foreseen that the publicity OF the
trial would bring out profusc testimony against
Forrest. II Is II customary result OF tho pub
licity OF trials OF this kind, reported con-
spicuously In the newspapers that information
Is conveyed to the lawyers in the case by almost
everybody who has any information TO give IL
some people do not desire to be known person.
ally In such matters they write anonymous let
tiers to the parties or to their lawyers. For
thirty'throe days the trial proceeded. Week
after week tho community was nauscated with
evidence against Mrs. Forrest. printed in nearly
all, II not all. OF the daily newspapers The
effect Of this evidence oh the public mind was
the reverse III what was expected by those who
introduced 1t. 80 gross was /; that II seemed TO
react In Mrs. Forests favor. Finally Van
Burcn, on behalf Of the defendant Edwin For
rest rested hig case. Then camc In food the
strongest kind OF robuttng testimony on tho
part Of tho plaintiff against Forrest. Thoro
seemed to be no end to the evidence cstab-
fishing the charges against him. Finally, when
he had adduccd a superabundance OF tcs.
timony, O'COnor, on behalf OF the plaintiff
Mrs. Forrest, rested in his turn. Mr.. Clinton
thinks that had he been so disposed, he would
have had testimony enough to proceed with tho
trial a month or two longer. Elaborate and able
addresses to tho jury were made by Van Buren,
and O'Conor on behalf OF their respective sides,
and an impartial charge was delivered by tho
Judge. Tho jury found In favor OF tho plaintiff
and against the defendant. An extraordinary
legal spectacle was thus presented. On the first
day OF the trial Van Buren, on behalf OF the do.
fendant, Forrest, had refused to accept verdict
In his favor. At the ond OF thrtythree days For.
rest was ANONYMOUSLY defeated, and his wife
achieved q triumph for which she was equally
indebted to tho blunder OF Van Buren, and TO
O'Conor's ability and skin. John Van Buren,
seemed never afterward to regain the prestige
which he had lost in that case.