The New York Herald Newspaper, November 29, 1850, Page 2

THE FORREST CASE. Important Legal Proceedings. NEW YORK GENERAL TERM OF SUPREME COURT. Before Ramonde, Prseldl J , and Justices wa 4 Nov. 2, 1850.—C vs. Edwin For- rest.--The complaint i was filed by the wife to obtain 's seyartion the ground of mt. her husband, on It appeared that the defendant had separated from his wife, allowing her $1,500 a year for her support—that after the scperation, bo Bad instituted proceedings in Penn- sylvania to obtain a divorce from her, ou the ground . By the laws of that State, it was necessary that the husband should have been a resident there for one year; and the complaint al- 4 that he was not at the commencement of the Pennsylvania, end for a year preceding had sothee , a resident of thet Siate, and that he pre- tended to bea resident there, and had brought his wuit there io order to deprive the who re- sided in this State, of the means of properly defend- ing herself againgt the charges made wgainst her. ‘rhe complaint also. alleged that. the defendant was the owner of a large property, sit mostly in this State, and it expressed the tears of the plain- nfl, from cireumstances which had come to her knowledge, that the defendant would depart this ‘State; that he would sell hs property here, and re- move his means from this State, and would forcibly abduct her from this State, and remove her to Pennsylvania, in order to subject her to the. jaris- die’ion of the courts of that State. She therefore prayed an injunction, restrain- ing the defendant from proceeding in his suit in Pennsylvania, on the ground that it was a frand upon her right to be heard in the courts of this State; for a writ of suppiicavit, commanding him not to molest her in her retreat, ia this State, and for a me exeat, restraining him from Gani Soma the State, so that he might always amenable to the courts of this State for any violation of the injunction. Those several writs were allowed by a judge atchambers, and a motion was made at the special term to dis charge the writ of ne excat, which was granted. The plaintiff appealed from that order. ©. O' Conor, for plaintiff J. Van Buwsn, for defendant. Fouonps, Presiding Judge--The counsel on both sides agreed that ‘he writ of ne exeat is abol- ished by the Code. I certainly did not so understand the law at the time thet | ajlowed the writ in this case, or I should have hesitated in directing it to issue; for the distinction on which the counsel for the plain- tiff now rests bis cleim to the writ, did not then eccur to my mind, nor was it then suggested to me. Unuil the decision in this care at the special term, it had net occurred to me thet the writ had been abolished; but, on the other hend, | have several tures allowed it since the Code was enacted, sup. posing it to be one of those provisional remedies which had been saved to suitors by sections 244 and 468. I confess that the note of the commis- soners hed not met my eye, and I have acted upon the subject in ignorance of theit intention, and without the light which | might, doubtless, have derived from their remarks. And bow that my attention is called to those re- marks, | cannot receive the avowal of their iaten- tion in recommending the law ae conclusive evi- dence of th tion of the Legislature ia passing it, nor as anything but very imperfect evidence of its real meaning lt was frequently remarked by the former Court of E » by the Chancellor, and by the former Supreme Court, when the notes of the revisors, though ppily distinguished by great learning and research, were quoted to them, as evi- dence of the meaning of the Revis:d Statutes; that they could not receive them as such, for the Legisiatare might have meant one thing and the revisers enother, and that the meaning of the statute wes to be gathered rather from its language, and the plain import of the words used, than from any specification as to the thoughts or intentions of those who proposed it. it would doubtless tend to relieve our task of interpreting the code, of much of its burden, if we could be ot liberty te refer in all instances to the views of the commissioners in reporting aod though that might involve im all cases, the inquiry whether the part under consideration had been Teported by them or rpolated by the Legislature, and might sometimes require us to give a constr: tion quite foreign to the plain ingoet oe the lang ved, yet it would materially lessen both the re- spe ity and the labor which seem to be aecu- my at og 0, on us. But I khaow of no principle to authorize us to adopt such a course. The maxima verbis legis, non est recedendum, is as old as the common law itself, end nothing is better settled than the rule that the intention of the law-giver is to be deduced trom tohen reer the tody of the act in fever ef readi nral snd obvious 20 Wend view of the whole and every part of a statute tod compered together, end that the true of @ ctatule is propertly to be sought from elt The current of authority according to the f the language, (per where n Breneon J are ne geth xt a8 from the ocea- law, from the mischief y in view. (1 Kent's © be the sound maxims of experience, and ad | have to wander ation of i by the resumed i he discretion of aw, would cast afloat upon an unexplored sea, jate that certainty which in law The admission wi at the bar, to which I have alinded, and the decision of the Baperior Qourt to which we were referred, both are based upon the iden that the writ of ne excat has merely the oilice ndendum at law, and issues f wrresting the defendant. view of the office of the eaprus ad re ouly for the purpe This is n ricoh er poses of the w Like the writ of sup, it is one of the r remedies connec the exclusive of equity; and itn well be iu he w f in (be nature of the process at common sureties of the peace, and is resort wite agviast her hu both at law and im equity, the w nS another adequete remedy. It is true it is 4, but it is ¢ y true that it has not the e ceased to exist ax emedy.— (Code va. Codd, 23.C.R., Mi y, Eq. J., § 1,466 The writ of nee bi i alive crown, command any ( Brev $5, 2Co. los. 54; Com. Dig. ( cery 4B) ln the n of El purye of Qs« 1 Bot Fo Mue a prere righ’, and peral wii ne Cases of € ® beaten el h at how we ve Ex 1J,0.K.1.) Sach ts the ge rule, to which there are, b WO excep and one of them e y decreed to a wife, which will be enfo by this writ against the hoeband, if he is So quit the realm.—(Shaftoe ve. Shafioe, 7 Ves. 71; Lowe ib. 172, 2 Atk 210.) Ard the arises whether the wnt, ia this, one of the excepted coses, ie the case of an arrest prohibited by eect. 178 of the Code, or is one of thove provisions! which is saved to or mth « abolition, by section and at » the writ merely as a means of t ook enle itable debt, we may well eo: th y ed by the arrest provided fe the Code if we look apon it as a prerogative writ to Ccmpel &@ man to remain at home aatil he he hes perier he realm, or asa writ in eid of the exclusive jurisdiction of equity, reetreining one who designs to avoid the jastice and ity of the cou ung beyond sea att’s Practical Registe ».) we may well doubt whether it is or ought to be aboliehed. And we may well imagine tl ere were members of the Legis« lature learned enough to know its full scope and office, i wite crough to wish to retain it, in cases where its abolition could be of no practical benefit, end its continuance of no poesivie injury The writ has been applied to foreigners termpo- ratily ia this State, upon the principle that by going beyond the Stave they might avoul the jurisdiction of our courte, and deprive parties resorting to our courts of their rightioa remedy in thern.—( Wood- ward vs. Schezell, 2J.C. R., 412—Mitehell vs. Bunch, 2 Paige, 06 ) It has been applied to cases where the party has real and pefronel prope rty out of the State, which our cours cen compel him to assign for the benefit of creditors suing here—to an accountant of the crown, about to leave the realm without having red bis accounts —(Atiormey General ve. jucklow, 1 Price Rep , 280.) to cases where it clearly appeared that the plainofl wee entitled to a decree for a formance —(Boehnvs Word; Twin. & Ru These, es well 2s the action of accow earee in which the wrt has other o' f merely the enforcement ov the peyment of an equi- table debt, and they are case* in which the prose- enting paty must be often w.thout remedy unless the writ “an be resorted to A euit .or alimony is like tothen:. I Lenton vs. Denton, 13.0. R. upon a petitien setting forth that the wife had filed her aill for a dlivorce; that the defendant had abandoned her, and rreated with cruelty; that rhe bed no means of support; his duty to | and hat the defendan: was.a man of lage fortune, named for a we exeat, and a writ of supplicavit to | of Phi ‘and threatened to leave the the defendant from molesting her reweat, jor Kent said the of & ue en the es ry rl to leave tne essential to justice, a been grant in like cases, and he allowed the writ. Js all this done away with by the Code, and these salutary 8 of writ aboli by it? None of these cases are founded upon the narrow idea so much dwelt upon, that the writ has as i's sole office the requiring of equitable bail for equit- able debts, but upoa the broader principle, that it is necessary to the due exercise of this court’s peculiar and exclusive jurisdiction, and to prevent a failure of justice. Are we compelled to declare that this wise le is blotted out of our system of jurispru- lence? Surely not. Certainly we cannot be re- quired to deny to parties this long accustomed and efficient remedy, unless the language of the statute ig too plain to be mistaken, In Mitchetl vs. Bunch, supra, the Chancellor said, that if the court had jurisdiction of the cause, and the defendant intended to leave the State, so that the deeree against him would be ineffectual, the complainant had a right to the'writ; and if this be true of equitable debts, it must be equally true of all the other cases in which the writ could ordi- narily issue. ‘The Code has nowhere in express terms abolish- ed the writ of ne‘exeat : such abolition is inferrable only from the enectment in sec. 178, that no person shall be arrested in a civil action, except as pre- scribea by the act. And it becemes important to inquire whether the arrest here spoken of is of the game nature and effect with the operation ef the writ of neexeat, so as actually to supersede it, or whether it is oae of those provistoual remedies ex- isting at the enactment of the Code, not otherwise provided for therein—§ 244. One marked difference between an arrest uuder the Code anda me excat, is this—that the writ never issued where the person of the defendant could not be touched under the decree, either on execution or attschment.— (Gleason vs. Bisby, 1 Clarke, 551; } | | | Court | | | Johnson vs. Glendening, 5 Gill & Jobn, 463.) The arrest, in an action at law, has uot now, and never has had, any such limitation. Another giflerence is in the pature of the arrest. Under the code, §187, the defendant is to give bail that he will, at ali times, reader himseif amenable to the process of the Court during the peadeney of the action, and to such as may be issued to enforce the judgment therein. Upon ane exeat, the bail ia merely that he will not go, or attempt to go, into parts without the State, without leave of the Court. Inthe one case, the Sheriff is commanded to ar- rest the defendant, end keep him in custody until discharged by law.—(Code, §185.) [a the other cese, he is merely commanded to cause the defend- ant to come before him, and give security not to depart the State. Tn one case, the surety may discharge themselves by strrendering their principal. lo the other, they can never be discharged, except by order of the gain, it is not necessary, though it is usual, that the ne exeat should be by writ—it may be by order enforced by attachment for contempt. Such is the practice in the English Court of Exchequer, where an order is, in the first instance, granted that the party, within a limited ume, give seeurity that he will not depart the kingdom, and in default, that an attachment issue.-( Attorney General vs. Macklow, 1 Price, 259 ) I see nothing in the code to prevent such a prac- tice, and, in case it should be adopted, instead of issuing the writ in the first instance, sectioa 173 would clearly warrant an arrest on the attach- | uent, as for @ contempt. | Sworn before me, this Mth day of November, 1860, Iu on arrest wnder the code, tbe bail can be proceeded egainst for a default only by action (section 190), but on a in case of a breach of the bond, the Court may order the secu- rilies te pay the money into court.—( Musgrave vs. Medey, 1 Mer., 49.) In all essential particulars, then, the ne exeat is unlike the arrest provided for in the Code. In its nature and effect, and im the cases to which it is applicable, it is unlike, and it seems to me that, construing this statute by the old and well es- tablished rules of iaterpretation, it is impossible to say that the me exeat is otherwise provided for in the Code, and therefore abolished by it. The relief sought in this case of the ne exeat, and the supplicavit, was only that which the Court of Chancery has long been in the hab granting, as appurtenant to its peculiar and ex » jurisdiction, (2 Story, Eq. J., section 1,464), #8 precively that which was ght for and Keat, in Denton vs. Denton, 1, inot With propriety be denied to suitors, when esked for in a proper case Having thus etrived at the conclusion that the writ of ne exeat is not abolished as a provisional remedy, it only remains for me to inquire whether a proper case was preeented to justify 1s allowance. ‘ hes ever been the practice of the Court of Chencery to deny it where the applicant for it had oub adequate remedy at law; as, for in- es of Concurrent juriediction, where nt might be arrested in a suit y law; and it will be clearly preper still to adhere to that rule to refuse the writ, whe herwise the de- fendent may be errested under the code, and to How it only in those cases where without it there may be a fetlure of justice, ar of their legitimate 1 the redrece of wrot has not been usual, at le lish ¢ , togrant the writ in sui y votil @ deeree for elimo: And | confess that it it had Deuton, and the a » | should for this nd, perhaps, altogether have refused the but | did not ieel myself at liberty to depart from or disregard @ rule laid down by shat eminent wii probation by Judge Story, (2 1.), and acqmesced ingand State, for a period of thiry- re, cited with » section 1, 472, 0 ed upon in thi year in determining the tion whether thi oper cere in Which the writ ought to be allowed, we are necessarily confined entirely to the ¢ slated on the t of the plaiautl, the def having, with much propriety, continued wi hin the limits necessary to raise th lew involved in hie m ewed in that aspect, this ¢ nton vs. Denton, in’ every es only put his wife away from him, but Jored her without home or support, ax her all eupport. Ia thie cave ta Y v r his wife, t. Nothrea is sufficieatly ¢ agsert i his re ce is in there bO reason given for ending that he wiil not return to it from time nd be nally within the juriedietion of en its jodement shail be urt, and th the his is not cuflicicat to warrant the grantin out on whieh the ec a repose its belief; and | those upon which the plaintiff relies, und to which | © points as the foundation of her behef, are not | enough to work in our minds the same delief which obtaine in here or the writ of 1¢ creat was | ' order of the Special | to be aflirme G, Judge's tk ¥ HE STATE OF NEW YORK Catharine N. Forrest against Edwin Forrest - ( Penmsylvonia, City and County of Phila Ss a, ss —Henrietta Forrest, of asid city, single women, being eworn, say she is the sister of : 4 Fawin Forrest; that he was born in the dis- ret of Southwark, county of Philadelphia and | nsylvania, on the ninth day of March, sided in his mother’s family from he time of hie bith, except when abeent on pro- uel or other business, until about the year » when, Viog married in Engiand, he re- moved to the city ot New York; thet, with inter- vale of abeence in Larope and ditlerent cities in the United States, he continued to reside in the ci'y of New York until about the first June, 1549, when, having separated from wife, he returned to. the city of Philadelphia, and re- sumed his residence with hie sisters, at the house No. M44 Norih Tenth street, in said city; and since that time, es ehe verily belheves, has continued to reeide in the city and place Jast mentioned. That eke is enabled the more distinctly to state the feet, hem being an mmate of her brother's houce in Philadel; hin, and « member of his family. That she well recotlects that her brother, shortly atter such return to I’) ledelphia, and early in said menth of June, 18 my heme, and | have now no other,” and his uni form declarations and conduct, since chat time, have contormed 10 euch statement That he purchered the eaid house in Philndel- phia more then twenty ts since. That his mo- ther, up to the time of her decease, and her daugh- tere, who survived her, have, from the time of eaid purchase, com inved to reside in said house, in Tetith etreet, Philadelph Heneinrra Vorasst week in Gro Gaiscom, a Commissioner for the State of New York. Stote of Penneylvania, City and County of Phix lodelphia, es —]. George Griecom, a Commissioner matters therein set forth were true. | end bis entire | | Forrest it be hud @ word to say and dtd'depose god swear that the fa phi in Me ec of | ite of Pennsylvania iy of November, one sand and fifty. [1.8] Gro Griscom, A Commissioner for the State of New York. Office, 119 Walnut street, Philadelphia. City - Philadelphia, ss --Before_ the subscriber personal ppeared, Robert T. Conrad, of said city, w img duly mm, according to law, doth de and te that in or about Sune, of the year 1849, he saw Mr. Edwin Forrest in the city of Philadelphia, upon various occasions, and that in the course of different conversations, distinetly understood from him that he had rest his ori- ginal residence in the said city, and that the depo- pent bas every reason to believe, and does believe, that, since the period ubove mentioned, he has been, and still is, a resident of Philadelphia. And further he saith not. R. T. Conran. State of Pennsylvania, Crtyand County of Phila- delphia, ss.—1, George Griscom, & Commissioner for the State of New York, residing in the eity Philadelphia, in the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Pennsylvania, do certify that on the four- teenth day of November, in the year one thousand eight hundred and fifty, the above named Robert 'T. Conrad subseribed the foregoing affidavit in m esence, atthe said city of Philadelphia, and di lepose end swear that the matters therein set forth were true, Jn witness whereof, | have hereunto set my hand and attached my oilicial seal, at the city of Philadelphia, in the county of Philadelphia, in the State of Penney leary aforesaid, on this fourteenth day of November, one thousand eight hundred and fifty. Ls Go. GRiscom, » A Commissioner for the State of New York. SUPREME COURT. Catharine N. Forrest vs, Ldwin Forrest.— City and County of Naw York, ss —James Lawson, of said city, being sworn, says he is informed that the above named plointifl bath, in an affidavit made by ber in this cause, s!ated that she could prove * by several respectable witnesses, as she is assured by them, and doth believe, that said James Lawson, (this depenent,) cid repreeent and state, in the summer of the year 1849, that he had just then re- cently, and during the separation of this depoaent and said Edwin F st, heard said Edwin Forrest say, in s0 mevy words, that there Was no crime on the part of this deponent, and that he, the said Ldwin Forrest, * wirhed to God there was.’ And this deponent says, that he never heard the said Edwin Forrest meke any statement of the charac- ter or to the import above steted ; that this depo- nest never made any such statement es is above alleged, to any person Whomsoever; that on the contrary, in or about the mouth of November, in the year 1549, he had a conversation with the said Mis Forrest, when at an interview which this de- ponent hud with the said Mrs. Forrest, with the hope and view of eflecting a reconciliation between her end her said husband, end when deponent was ignorent of the causes which led to such ’separa- tion, ard Mrs. Forrest had consented to send Mrs. Voorhees irom her house in Sixteenth street, in the city of New York, which deponent thought a ne- cessary step before the question touching the recon- ciliauion could be put to Mr. Forrest, deponent asked Mrs. Forrest, ** Now, since we have come to this point, pray tell me who was wrong in that unknown cause which separeted you? Ido not ask the cause, for that, you say, is never to be told;. but who was wrong?” M Forrest answered, a .” To this | remarked, “ I am glad to hear 80; for confession is the first cet Tepen- and added, * What can a wife say toa busband, or a husband to a wife, which cannot be atoned for, tinee the matter is known to themselves alone?” Mrs. Foriest replied, * Ab, siz, the diffi- culty in our cage is, thet a third party kuows it.” These were Jer very words. During the whole course of the year 1849, 1 was on terms of the closest intimacy with Mr. Forrest, and in the habit of constant intercourse with him; but the suid Edwin Forrest never told me what the cause of ceperation was until some time in Decern 1549; thet until the last conversation above deta with Mre. Forrest, this deponent had no_ sus. picien of the cause of the seperation, nor did he imagine that “crime” actuated Mr. Forrest in his course towards the pleintifi. That early in May, IMdY, at the special request of Mrs. Forrest, deponent wrote to Jobo Sinclair, Eeq, her father, residing in London, that Mr. and Mrs. Forrest had mutually agreed to sepsrate—ihat deponent knew not the e thercot- it was to bim amystery; that Mr. Forrest, in doing 20, bad made a self-sacrifice for some high privciple, end deponent added, in said letter, that Mrs Forrest’s honor was unsullied. letter was written and sent without Mr. rresi knowing ite contents; that the only copy of thot letter ade, he showed to Mrs. Forrest sc ite coments she approved of, ief paragrayh referring to her *“ hovei the objected in words to the following Why question my hosor when thet bas pever been questioned!’ At Mrs. Foires’s tpecial request, depondent gave her said copy, ard he bh e, and the brief reference (0 3 from memory. De ponent further ¢ ee, that from@the hour he M “orrest that Mr. petution, viz : on the da corhees’ house, up to 30: beirg warmly sttached to eteflonts were directed to bring ul @ reconcilistion, in which he fai and the t wee exp ed to Mrs. Fe te dated duy morning, let December, 1849, in the fol- y words: Barunna My Dear Mra. Forrest ale Monnine, Ist December, 1849. ot unmindtul of your in- tereste I leid the whole er | way dbeaton before Mr. Forrest inthe beet phrase 1 could command, and soked him to think culmly, and let me know his feel- ings. It wea only lastnight that I received a decided avewer, You were right. You suid tt wae impossible that & cause ineuperalle exieved, and | wasonly work: ing in the cark. [ree no chance ofjreconeiliation; in- decd. under the feelings you have expressed to me. ik of conddence in your sincerity. @ vnien would not, Lem persuaded, conduce to the ther. Did thelpower lie ip my hands not for beth your sakes inelst upon it ir. Forieet hea suifored—euftered ht future before him ast over it loved, or ever tell me the cause, You know ft. hat in me lies to ou gote England. eit weked it. or it you t place in the country near, as you also I ean do rhall be done to serve your in- How far it may be in my power to meet all wishes I kow not. Much willdepend on yourtelf, ur rister returns to house. le to cerve you to the extent | desire; bu J power, as 1 said, te wt your beet servic till all De ponent farther eays, that when Mra. Forrest f epeke to him of intended separation, she cherged bim net to hint his knowledge to Mr. end accordingly deponent never mentio to him tll two months or more afterwards, & persgreph eppear 1 the New York vening Mirror reteirmg to the eubject. After 1eading that perogreph, with the consent of Mre. Fon cet, depondent one evening epoke to Mr. Forrest n bis library. ‘Thet Mr. Forrest declined to talk cn the subject. That twice or thrice afterwards, de- nt referrcd to the contemplated separation, 1. Forrest positively declined to say one word touching its cause, Or discussing the matter at all. ‘That trom the day after ¢ id party, up tothe Sth April, as well ce afierw * when Mr. and Mis. Forrest ported, deponen ad freqnent con- vereations on the subject with Mrs. Forrest; that on sll occasions she said the covre would never be divulged, and that on fthese occasions, Mra. Forrest eaid to ¢eponent that she bad asked Mr. “ heras a wile, to which he replicd, as Mrs. Forrest informed thie depenent—‘* No, Catharine! no! and would to Ged { could, for then I should not suffer, the agony I now feel.” Deponentfurtherenys,that some time after Decem- ne wife, ond the accusation was much talked of, Mr. Darley one evening, while visiting deponent at his house, mentioned that deponent had told him n conve mn, long ago, thet Mr. Forrest hed no gviltto charge egamet. Mre. Forrest. To which ceponent replied m effect, that he (Darley) was mistehen; that Forrest had never, on any ocea: epoken ofthe cause of separation, had neither cused nor acquitted her, and that deponent first heard of the ecevsation about the time it was mede wublie in December, 1819. Deponent said to Mr. Barley that the mistehe was, that when deponent r tobim Mra Forres wee quoting 1 ords,whieh she alleacd Mr. Forreat had spoken, that he (Darley) thoveht this deponent was quo them direct from Mr. Fe hireelf, which wes not the case. Depenent hed always said that Mr. Forrest did not nocuse his wife of guilt prior to December, 1849; but pever, on any oeeesion, could he have enid hat Mr. Forrest decieted her free from guilt, for that he never did to this deponent, Janes Lawson. Sworn before me the 15th November, 1860. Josern Stren, Commissiones of Deeds. Catharine N. Forrest againet Edwin Forrat. — Afidarit—City and County of Now York, s— dwin Forrest, of the city of Philadelphia, defend- ent in the above action, beirg duly eworn, saith, thet the charge of adultery, es most falsely alleged ainet him, hae been, as he has reason to ve, fabricated under evil advisement, for the tpose of intimidating him from the tion of for the State of New York, residing in the city of Philadelphia, in the county of Philadelphia, in the Stare of Penneylyenia, do certify thet on the fourteenth dev of November, in the year one thoneend eight hundred and fifty, the withia ew hie rights ewan injored husbend. He utterly rej diates erd denies it as falee and wrongful; avers that his conduct ae a hasband, throug! the period of the coverture of this plaintiff and de- ferdent, repels that ard every charge of injury or uplindness to his wife, He has, at all times and ber, 1849, when Mr. Forrest hed publicly accused | 1 tear I shall not | ‘Chsumed '' Busbant te has’ beeat ap tothe of their separation, hei stant and affec- very | ur that could deponent further avers, thatin the month of May, 1848, he wes in Cincinnati on professional business, and that Mrs. Forrest arcomesnieg. him ; that whilst there, to wit, on the Slst day of May, he left his iat in the City Hotel, to fulfil an nt that would detain him from two to o’clock, P. M.; but returning, with Mr. 8. 8. Smith, unexpectedly, he abruptly entered his par- lor, and found Mrs. Forrest stani between the knees of a Mr. Jamieson, who was sitting sofa, with his hands upon her person. popent was amazed and confounded; and as — ey pe Aegon Lona fn hur- ly changed her position, and replied, con- cdershlepereshaticn, that Mr. Jamieson had been priate out her phrenological developements. The jeponent had never entertained a doubt of the vir- tue or Mrs. Forrest; had it been other- wise, or had he then possessed facts to justify a suspicion of illicit intercourse, the circumstance woud ene induced an instant rage ie Bat 1 @n unsuspicious nature, and anxious to tales that it was nothing more than an act of nce on her part, he was, for a time, quieted by this explanation; although, upen reflection, be could not but regard it—the said Jamieson being seated and she standing—as extraordinary and in- credible. An engagement had been made by those present tomake @ visit; but Mr. Jamieson, after attending the party so far as the entry, eeeuety oug! and witbout leevc-taking, withdrew; and al diligently searched for by the said S. 8. Smith, as deponent is informed by said Smith, and believes, was not to be found. That this incident, though it gave the deponent some disquietude for Uie time, did not unsettle his long-eeated coufidence in the honor and fidelity of = wife, nor in any wise change his affections for er. And the deponent further says, that after he and Mrs. Forrest left Cincinnati, he observed that she carefully preserved about her person a bundle of letters, and, elthough it was unusual for her to do so, it made no material impression on him at the time. And he further avers, that after their arriv- al in New York, to wit, on the 18th day of Janvary, 1849, Mrs. Forrest attended a y at the house of her sister, Mrs. Voorhees. That he had many and good reasons to believe thet the said Mrs. Voorhees was a woman of licen- tious compenionships, character and habits, which had constrained the deponent to exclude her from his house, and that her influence over Mrs. For- rest was dangerous to her reputation and character; thet these apprehensions arose not only froma clandestine marriage ante-dated, and the birth of a child within a few months after, but from many other facts, from asseciations of a profligate cha- racter, and from language and conduct inconsis- tent with virtue. He desired to examine the said bundle of letters which Mrs. Forrest had pre- served about her person, and which he did not doubt were from her sister; and using for that a ose the key of the drawer of his library table, he opened the said drawer and examined the let- ters. And he seys that the statement of Mrs. Forrest, that she knew that this deponent essed a key which unlocked the drawer which con- tained the Consuelo letter, is untrue; that she wes ignoyant of the fact that the keys of the said bureau drawer and of the drawer of the library table were alike, and each capable of opening the seme locks, is shown by the fact that she had in the absence of this deponent from New York the lock of the library drawer picked, while she had the key of the bureau drawer in her possession ; that the bundle of letters in which Mr. Jamieson’s letter was found had been caresully concealed from this deponent, and, as he egain avers, Mrs. Forrest was wholly ignorant of the fact that he possessed a key whieh could open the drawer in which it was secreted. The said letters so found by him were, with one exception, letters written by Mrs. Voorhees to Mrs. Forrest, and, upon perusal, coufirmed his previous coavic- tions of the character of the writer, ae a very few exirects will be sufficient to show, the names of some of the persons referred to being omitted :— FXTRACTS FROM MRS, VOORHEES LETTERS TO HER SISTER, MRS. FORREST. Wrisis' (N.P.) Rouse, May Sth.--Mre Willis and I are conroling Ourselves that they are both boys expect women to deceive them all their ferzting, a8 this deponent charges, to the drep ci the said Mrs. Voorhees and Mrs. W When I went home this eve me. awivlly dieeppoin tojate, Ti's all cet when jut Consuelo. next we meet, Iness then And yield the conquered time to bliss, And teal the triumph with a ™ | handw: and hoped that manuscript was merely an extract from @ liceatious eed ame He determined, there! take upon the subject, until he self upon these points. midaight, and joined him in the library. After some conversation, he spoke to her of the danger- ous character and associations of her said sister, and in the course of a heated argument, charac terized them and her, as he then believed and now knows and can prove, to be just. The calm and collected re; of Mrs. Forrest was, “ It’s a lie ; 's a lie.” hen this depanent said, “If aman should so insult me he should die; with no wo- man that does eo cun I consent to live.” And he further says, that on the following Satur- day, January 20, he, in order to obtain the hand- writing of the said Jumieeon, wrote to him, asking an immaterial question, to which letter he after- wards received an answer in a disguised hand, which effort to deceive betrayed a consciousness of guilt, anda fear of deiection on the part of said Jamieson ; andthat when Mrs. Forrest was in- formed that he had so written, she, as he is in- formed and believes, manifested ipa apprehen- sion, and she immediately wrote a letter to the said Jamieson by the same mail, bearing it herself to the post office. This deponent having, after some days inquiry, eecertained that the said letier was in handwriting of Mr. Jamieson, and that no part of it was extracted from Consuelo, was brought to the melancholy conclusion that his wife had re- ceived, secreted, and chenshed a letter which re- me and rejoiced over her guiltiness with the author. And he says that on the said Saturday, the 20th day of January, in the mornmg, Forrest, as he is informed and believes, went to the drawer of one of the bureaus, which she always kept locked, and examined a number of letters, when of a sud- den she started back, with an exclamation of affiright; and being usked by Mrs. Bedford, now Mrs. Underwood, the eeper, hy toy by her deposition, which was oresented by this depo- nent to the Legislature of Pennsy!vani 5 what was the matter, replied, ‘* He has got that letter,” and spoke about Mr, Jamieson and Consuelo; Mrs Forrest then opened another drawer, and said * I am glad that he did not open this drawer ; he might have found some more letters ;” and the same day she destroyed these letters. And he says that on the evening cf the day last mentioned, he hed an interview with Mrs. Forrest on thesubject. Ile exhibited the letier, and in- quired who wrote it; and she replied that it was written by Jamieson. The deponent asked when it had been received, and she answered that it was handed to her on the day deponent and she left Cincinnati, the 4th day of 1848. He then said that such a letter was the worst indignity that could be offered to a virtuous women ; aod asked her how she could have received, and secretly re- tained, a letter involving her own character so fatally, and if she regarded itas wrongful, not to have told this deponeut. He said that a really vir- tuous women would have spurned it, or torn it into pieces, and flung them into her insulter’s face, ond never have seen or known him afterwards. He said that this explained the peer position in which he had found her with Jamicson, in Cincin- nati, some two weeks after the letter had been re- ceived by her. This deponent avers that it was on leaving Cincinnati the letter was delivered, as ap- pears by her own statement; aud some two weeks afterwi , on their return, that Mrs. Forrest was found standing in an immodest position, with the hands of the wuthor of the letter upon her person. Mrs. Forrest protested that she was not guilty of eny crime. his deponent then asked her if she had ever written to Jamieson since the receipt of the said letier, end ehe called God to witness that she had not. But this deponent avers that the afli- davit of Jumieson, prepared for the Pennsyl- vanio Legislature for presentation on her behalf, alleges that she did so write to him. Deponeat asked Mrs. Forrest why the had not shown him the Consuelo letter ; she said she was afraid. He then inquired why she bad not desiroyed it; and excleimed, * Oh, God! why did | not destroy Desr Caiten—Thit ‘¢ changed ‘since I wrote you | *!<' trem T— street. That rhe hed that trick. and adged | ¢1”. ‘The deponent remarked, ‘because it was ‘hat if ail tales Were true the original wauted rather a | (served by Heaven as the instrument of your ex- big Dame just Low posure.” 2 : Speyer bas just been here, and Prank opportunely And he evers that the character of the said Jamie. cleared cut. Be seys I heve behaved very badly— | cou is notoriousiy and infamously treacherous aad awkward to teil bim how badly, Me has not et 1 Wee merried within a mouth of his depar- tll, lewet eid soouest mended. He ie dying sou. and was quite Mattered at your writing out siraph about him, He bas ebanged his mind, f going to rtey bere some months. He says he he Bad taken F. with bim. devidieh I bepe ——— will come and see mo. I should like ork bis opinion a* a theologian and an honest han on my present mode cf life. It would not be well to give hin eny idear, and, perhaps, he could not help me; yet if Leould shake of this feeling of guiltiness it would be ® great thing for me. Wednesday May IT:h—Demned bad marriages term to be the order of the dey in ourfamily. Frank never reade any of your letters, I do wieh you would come home, 1 em 8° tired of everything and everybody, I will probably go out in the morning, and spend a confounded ten dollar piece. which le Upte. gave ber for money leaned scme time ago. And he avere thet Mrs. Voorhees, in one of these lettera 10 Mre Forrest, elluded to seme gentleman who hed in his poesession a Degnerreotype like- ness of Mra. Forrest, which he had taken from the hovre of this deponert. Allusions are made these letters to other persons, by asterivks, sou- briquete, and 80 forth: EXTRACT OF A LETTER FROM MRS. VOORMEES TO MRS HORREST. My pean Carten—Ifere’s the old story. Frank is dressing, ond 1 in bed, and he is to bring me m fart. 1 om pertectly well, but the lower mu little tired, and having vot thitk of that—I rest. rvppose, of nothing but th again in twelve or thirteen days; and. by the way, in view of that feet, [ think it is better that I should not call om apy there is a great deal of talk. The Chelseeites are rampant, but still J think all will be in a little while. —— bas not called om Mr K, ng time. and could bardly call on me now, and Wry awkward about visiting bis wife, or the s. The story would come much better from yeu. | 8. of Brooklyn, called on me yesterday. B8he bed heard some iaik, doubtless the worst that has been seid; but she came et once to see me, and hear the truth, I shall never forget her kindness, but i did not let her think that 1 imagined there was any surpicion Lhope your ledyehip likes my cards. If they are sil, I will bave another set whem you ec in afortmight I think I shall still be im good visiting order, Uhat at the time the deponent examined these letters, his sole object wes to rescue a beloved wife, believed to be troe, from influences consi- dered corrupting end degrading. He», however, found among them a letier in the handwriting of George W. Jamieson, written to ber under the soubnquet of * Consuelo'’—a letter inconsistent with the dignity and purity of the matrimonial contre: admitting criminal acts committed be- iween the ead Jemieson and Mra, Forrest, and criminal persions still cheriehed. That the letter thus reoelved by Mra. Forrest was retained for meny months by her scerevy, and thatit isin the words following, to Wiu-= AMIESON TO MRS. FORREST. est Consuelo, our brief dream is e dr Have we not known real e nct realized what poets love to ret up ideal stote, giving fuil eense to their imagina- tiene teareely believing im ite reality, hav d@ the truth thet costacy is not : wt permit myselt to dent you, LEITER OF MR hours yy hf to iv tem thi Yes, eur litth eam of great aecount Is over; in the face; let us peruse its features. and read as 1 do, and you will Gnd ot all a dream.’ Cam resiity when fhe separates and exiles Can she divide our souls, our epirite? Can slander's tongue, or rumors trumpet, summon us io &@ parley with ourrel when to doubt esch ether we should hold » counsel No! no! A doubt of thee can no more find harbor in my brain than the opened rove could cease to be the hum bilds harbor. And as my beert and foul are in your ortesticn, examine them, and you will em whic a doubt of frem take us from each other! b there 6 re je enc ther potent teason that te bari 4 ie ey an ide. ném without being fer you. Te hep Cearest; write to me, and tell me you are Bink ofthe time w beppy. we shall meet in. Believe that Lrbail do my utmost d biess yo | and we must seperate.” | wil } ternese of my heart.” jrofligate ; end that Henry B. Hunt, by his ailidavis, presen‘ed to the ssid Legislature of ere alleges, uncey oath, that the character of the snid Jemueron for truth end veracity is bad, and that he * Dot to be beheved upon th; and the said Hunt also alleges, under oath, that the said Jamie- con is notorious us a libertine, and for being utterly without principle or honor in regard to women; ond that, some time in or about the year 1846, the seid Jamieson was on terms of friendly intimacy with the said Hunt, who was living at Butislo with his wite; that the said Hunt admitted Jamieson ficely, and with entire copfidence, to his family circle; and that the suid Jamieson, by every species of seduction and insidious art, firet corrupted the maind o' id Hunt's wife, and fiaally seduced her from the path o1 duty and honor—all of which, underoath, the sad Hunt alleges. And this de further enys that, in the said cot mentioned conversation with Mrs, Forre proposed to her a solemn oath, in writing, attesting her innocence ; she rigned it, but as she did 80, envered ecornfully end contemptuously; and this depenent observing it, seid, “‘ you have sworn felsely ; your derision and scornfulness—the mock. @ manner in which you have sworn, con- vinee me of your recklessness and falsehood; * Mrs. Forrest then said, “| epppose now that you oe for a divorce; nd the deponent answered, * No, that there was ced for the aid of a court, and that he was un- to minister to a morbid apoetite for scandal, by such exposure and public * She then asked, “what is to become of me!” and this deponent seid that he would provide for that, and that she should never went while she couducted herself properly. He suid this was but one error, (and this eeponent avers thet eat that time he knew of no other vet of infidelity,) and that he wes not disposed to deal with her harsnly. Forrest sai 1 will be degreded and insulted,” and he replied, that the could not be de; a le she conducted her- velf with propriety; and that ifany man dared toin- eult her, ehe shou!d call upon bim, and he protect and right her. He also said to her, that this calomity was one which he might have ex- ected; that her father, when the deponent epplied kor ber hand, told him to beware of her, and warned him thet het character and edveation were such she might deceive him. Mrs. Forrest answered, * | know he enid it; | was secreted in the closet ond overbeard it, and I cursed my father in the bit- Mrs. Forrest then entreated the silence of the deponent ration, to which he acceded, solely upon the ground of shielding her from shame; he agreed to sufler in silence; she pledged herself to entire silence upon the subject; and upon that consideration he agreed and promised not to mention 1 uses Which se- parated them. And th Copeae avers that, up to the month of December, 1849, a period of eleven months, be secrediy observed the said promise, and never to eny homen being, not even tothe members of his family, nor at any time, nor in any way, nor to eny person, divulged the cause of difference be- tween Mrs. Forrest and himeeit. And he further , that in the abovementioned conversation it wes egreed between them that they should continve to cecepy, before, the seme epariment, to avoid the suspicio d scandalons comments of servants, until the first of May, when ration should be forrally consummated; 8 deponent evere, that from and after the dis covery of the said letter they never cohabited, as will hereafterappear. This deponentand the plain- tiff continued tw live together, as had been ed vpom, until the 28th day of April, 1849, duri which time his demeanor towards her was ‘changed end cold, but not hareh, and that he declined, from @ een ra Oy eg all occasions, entering into soerety with her. The deponent having rented the house in Twen- ty-eecond street, where he had resided and made errangements for vacating Mrs. Forrest hav- ing determined to become an inmate of the family ot Patke Godwin, by their invitation, ehe, on the 27th of Ap aled to him to ac: her thither, on the following day, to avoid the injuri- ous remarks Jikely to arise should she leave the hovee alone; he considered the eppeal reasonable, geceded to it, and went with her in the wo Mr. Gedwin's house, where helefiher, 1n this, as in all that took place in relation to efleeting their er poral withow deponent. And this deponent further & the month of December, 1849, Mrs. Forrest, as he is informed and believes, hed, on frequent ceca. eione, end to divera persone, misrepresented the cause of theireeparation; that she had ascribed it tothe mircondnet of the depovent; end alleged that it erose from her tion to his course to a controversy with Mr. Macready, and thet N. P. Willie, whore statement is alleged by him to have by Mrs. Forrest’s authorvy, asserted in # pubjished libel om the eaid separation, that ‘ta steady and even-mir ded diflerence from her hune- hand, as to his condvet towarte Meeready dui ihe wewbles of last ) ear, brought his intolerance Forrest acted voluntarily, aod uhtest corstraint on the part of the e 18, that previous to to the cause of sepa- | EXTRACT FROM A LETTER, WRITTEN BY MRS. FOR= REST TO MR. FORREST, AT BALTIMORE, WHEN SHE HAD HEARD THAT MACREADY HAD SUDDENLY TERMINATED HIS ENGAGEMENT. 1 am sie4 you have triven Me. tay ea arta o wes, i pet bey rome pret pee happy ly net uw h ‘hed, im rome way, for el eT ar poet . way, the annoy. EXTRACT, NOVEM 1848. Mrs. Macready’s letter I foe apt sy ‘sent to Blakes Give tim (Mac) now you’re hand’s in; my own Ede sal SARAOT ntire ‘THE SAME PERIOD. well, yor wilt give to the supercanuated “22 ‘Be! EXTRACT, APTER MACREADY HAD MADE AN INJURIOUS ALLUSION TO MR FORREST, AT THE CLOSE OF HIS FIRST ENGAGEMENT AT ‘THE ASTOR PLACE OPERA HOUSE, NEW YORK, ANOUT OCTOBER, 1843. Tsend you the last ech of the great pomenoD, delivered iart night. Teuppoce be think imself safe now, but the ides of March are not over. EXTRACT AFTER €RE MANIFESTATION AGAINST Mas CREADY IN THE ARCH STREEY THEATRE, PULLADEL® eee yf peleen 20, 1848. ¥! arious are the accounts. as you may about the doings on been m to agree on the maia the old woman Mac= Je commencement but I 2 that, ir Je comm 3 ig the matter up to-night. mere EXTRACT OF A LETTER TO EDWIN FORREST BY MRS] FORREST, NOVEMBER 24, 1543. _ Macready’s speech was most impertinent, and I wag ha! rene ighted at your pointing out so. what first struck me as being so in pr not daring to name you. but saying simply “ an actor.’? I was also glad that you took the trouble (tor I know how you hate writing) to enter so fully into an nation. The public required it, as England has never been clear: i Ou 8} and some persons might, Goubiieas think it more po- litie, you would h If Mac (Macready) does not reply to you, he tacitly acknowle that he has told a wilful and ur blushi Sheed, ant to know how he is to get out at? And this deponent forther avers that, desiring to save Mrs. Forrest's reputation, he promised secrt on the subject of the cause of their separation, ani sacredly observed it; and knowing that she had utterly disregarded end violated that made by her, to the great injury of his reputation and the aliens ution of many valued friends, he addressed to Mrs.’ Forest the following letter:— LETTER OF EDWIN FORREST TO MRS. FORRESS, “IT am compelled to address you, by reports and rumors that reach me from every side, and which cue respect for my «wn character compels me not to disregard. You cannot forget that, betore we you obtaincd from me a rolemn pledge that ray nothing of the guilty cause—the guilt alone om your part, nct on mine—which led to our separations you cannot forget that. at the same tims, you also pledged yourself to a like silence—a silence that E supposed you would be giad te have preserved. 1 understand tro: cannot deceive m mente in regard to it led exor erate yourself and to throw the me, and nero" § to alienate from me the respect: and attachment of the friends I have left to me. thi fitting return for the kindness | have ever shown you!—ie this your gratitude to one who, though aware of your guilt and most deeply has endeavored to shield you from the scorn and contempt «i the world? The evidence of your guilt, you know, is in my possession Fehon that peared =) am papers, ave your Own acknowledgme S whom it written, and that the infamous ietter was eddressedto you. You know as well as I do that the caure of my leaving you was the conviction of your infidelity. I have said enough to mike the object of this letter apparent. I am content that the past shall remain in silence; but I do not intend, nor will I permit. that either you or any one connected with you ehall ascribe our to my mis- conduct, I derire you, theretore, to let me know at once whether you have. by your own assertions or by rencticning thore of ethers, enden' to throw the blame cf our miserable position on me. My fature ccnduct will depend apon your reply. Once your {Signed} EDWIN FORREST. New York, December 24, 1849. And this deponent avers that in this letter, ns by seference to it appeats, he distinctly mea ioned, vbe infidelity of Mrs. Forseet as the cause ob aepa~ ration; and that she, in her answer, did not deay the wuth of the charge, which answer is in the words following, to wit: I hasten to avewer the letter Mr, Stephens hes jast: lett with me, with (he utmost alacrity, as it affords me at least (he melanohely satjsiaction ot correcting misstatements. end of assuring you that the various rumors end reports whieh bave reeched you ate false. You tey thet you buve been told that Tam “con- etantly eeriqnivg fale reasons for our separetion. an@ making statements im regard to it Intended end cal- culated to exonerate mysit and to throw the whole biame on you’ This, [ beg most distinctly to state, ie utterly untrue. I have, whem asked the cause of our rad Gifferences invariably replied that this was a matter known only to ourselves, and w would rever be explained, and I welther acknowledged the right of the world of out mest Intimate friends to qvesticn cur conduct in this affair. therefore to let me know at You ray. desire once whet have by your own or ranctioning of others, endeavored to throw th of our miserable position on me,” I most solemnly aavert that I bave never done eo, directly or indirectly, nor bas any one conneroted with me ever made such gesertions, w r to mpeak of you in ny prese Tom find you have ena- tly to yourselt eoncerning this, t be evidentto you that we are both in « poxl- tion to be misrepresented to each other; bot [ cannot help adding. that the tone of your letter wounds me deeply ; a tew months ago you would not hare written ue But in thie neither dol biame you, but thore who have for their own motives poisoned your mind against Thir rurely an unnecessary addition to my suf- jut while [ suffer I feel the strong conviction that rome day, perhaps ove so distant that it may no longer be possible for us to meet on this earth. your own naturally noble just mind will do me justice, and tbat you will bel in the affection which for twelve years bas never swerved from you, [ canaot, nor would I endeavor, to subsoribe myself other thaa Yours, now and forever, (Signed) CATHARINE FORREST, Deo. 2h Ib4h. And he further avers that to the above letter the following eupplementary and explanatory statement was added, under the counsel of Park Godwin, aad to avoid the tecit acknowledgment of her guilt, several days atterwards, to wit, on the tweu ninth day of December— MRS. FORREST'S SECOND LETTER TO MA FORREST. Sarcnvar, Deo. 29, 1849 letter I received from you ow my selt wi in ask me By silence wou! plied assent to thore aceurations. After your repeated assurances to me prior on. to othe: pe then, of conduct to justly those gross and unex charges; aad I think why you should now seem to coasider » aud ancnymous letter a¢ an evidence of guilt I before having thought so, unless you here uiterior views, and reck to found some grounds on this for dix verce ; if this be your object, it could be more eauly, not to more \y, obtained. I repeatediy told you ite would make you more happy, 1 was willing to go out of this State Jou to odiain Son teal ad aon ty Lyng aged to this et- t i suc! 4 not your Wish, and thet ws needed nocourt of law te decide cur foture position for us. From the time you propored remonstranee, to our separation, I lore you to used ‘tthe seriously, and be rure, before you deel ch said il would mek: Sea that you should, therefore, om af you co, can only impute to yi avpgestions of thore who, uuder the gar! ate daring to intertere ween us; but their power to know whether your ensured by endeavorin e! to work my utter cannot believe it; and implore you, ha fake, to trust to your own better jptsmons, wnd ast em certain that your heart will tell you, I could noe seek to injure you. ro likewive, I will not be = it you suoce erushi mere ecmpleteiy—in carting disgrace mm one Fao bas Known no higher pride than the rigut of cailiog: herself your wife, si +f F irhawin FORRASE. To which letter this deponent returned the fol- lewirg answer :— MR. FORREST'S RAPLY TO MRS, FORREST'S LETTER, I anewer your be dated the Dy me om the Siet ulti misund: from beiwg jerstood. t Goawin bas told me thet the reply te. b was en ite whale tens, 1 do not desire to use bareh epithets lerguoge to you: Can do be good Batyou