The New York Herald Newspaper, December 27, 1850, Page 2

THE FORREST DIVORSE CASE. for three days, at the same hotel in which Mr. Jamison alse Voarded. He conducted himself with ordinary courtesy to. me, these three daya,_ Mr. Jt Supreme comp a oy, a es , ia tie SPECIAL TERM. presence of Mr. Forrest, at Cine’ to bri Before Chief Justice Bdmonda, | me, when he next came to New York, some muse, Dec. 26.—This case, which stead adjourned to which I had, from haste and madvertance, omitted In August he called upon me, at the this day, was resumed. by Mr. Charles O’Conor, | t° pack ht eounsel for Mrs. Forrest, continuing to read the | following document, which he had partly got | through at the adjournment ef the court, on Satur- | day last:— AFFIDAVIT OP CATHARINE N- FORREST. | Cuy and County of New York, ss.:--Catharine | N. Forrest, the plaintiff in this ac duly | sworn, depe ab follows, that is 10 say:—f have not, in action, charged Mr. Forrest with infidelity, amd was advised that it would be irre- Jevant to the present case to make sach sha, ‘or refer to such oflence by him. But, as he, or counsel, thinks otherwise, it may be for me to state the facts. he annexed schedule, marked ‘*Copy charge and answer,” centains the charge on that subject, made by me in another ection (omitting the numbers of houses and names of female participators,) aad also con- tains Mr Forrest’s answer in that action. lam advised, and believe, that such answer is a virtual admission of the infidelity charged. He denies the fact, at the particular times or places charged, but has not ventured to deny the fact itself. I may have been misinformed as to those particulars, but the principle fact remain undenied by him. My affidavit made in this action, on the second day of September last (1850), was prepared by one of- my counsel, under my iastructions. | was present at bis office during nearly all the time he was writing it,and J prepared three com of it with my own hands, at my residence, before deposing to it. 1 was un- der no earthly influence tm the preparing or the signing of said affidavit, save my own judgment and reason; though, of course, from time to time, | I received the advice of counsel, and I now re- affirm the truth of suid affidavit, in all respects. I deferred this action against Mr. Forrest to the Jatest precticable moment, and thereby afforded hon time and opportunity to recede from his pur- i Both in my ture of Pennsylvania and my , [studiously avoised reference 3 aud Cegsures Upon third persona; i any imputation agaiast Mr, Forrest, except to the extent which was absolutely necessary tothe maintainance of my action, and seemed necessary to tie vindieation of my own in- nocence. 1 annexed a copy of my said protest, and now confidently refer to the sam:2, and to my for- met siained from stating an. ls not absolutely neces- sary to the case, which was diacreditable to Mr. Forrest, or to any one else. The protest is dated Mareh the fourth, 1850, and contains not a word a im, except What may be implied from the cumstances adduced to show my innocence. afi vit, which 18 dated September 2d, 1850, eed, asserts that he w his suit to be uajust, and, in connection the h, shows that he prac- lised an artifice (which he has not ventured to | deny), in order to entrap me into an implied ad- | mission of guilt. In impugning the motive of his proceedings against me, and denying his belief in | the imputation of crime, [conceived myself to be | aflidavit, to ehow that I have hitherto ab- | house in Twenty-second street, delivered me the music, and spent some half hour paying an ordi- may morning visit. It was one o’clock in the day, and | received him with what he seems to have considered coolness. I had once expressed @ sufficient censure of the Consuelo letter, and I did not intend in any form, favorably or unfavorably, to notice it further. I, therefore, cannot say, that | Lintended to exhibit any teeling ing my manner, oa that occasion. Mr. Jamison never called upon me, after our final departure from Cincinnati, except this once. Forther than this, it is not true that | ever received in my sai tional matters, stated in Mr. F orrest’s affidavit, took place ; he did not, in speaking of such letter, refer to the subject of virtue; he did not say that said letter involved my character fatally, or, at all; he did not charge me with retaining it secretly, ex- cept by asking me why! did not show it to him; he did not Say that a really virtuous woman woul have spurnes mitted an imprudence in receiving ‘or concealing such letter.” I did not then, or ever before December 24, 1819, protest that I was not guilty of crime; I never said that I was afraid, in reference to such letter; I never exclaimed, “ Oh, God, why did [ not de- stroy it,” or said anything of the kiod; nor did Mr. Forrest ever remark, ‘that it was reserved by heaven as the instrument of my exposure.” I de- clare that each and every of the aliegations of Mr. Forrest, in his said affidavit, touching his conver- sation or conversations with me, and hereia above denied, is wholly, and in every respect, untrue. During the interval between Mr. Forrest's first announcement of his intention to separate from about the event, and its painful consequences to me. I said that but one cause could justify him ia it, that was a departure from virtue by me id thatthe public would assume that cause to exist, and condemn me accordingly. Mr. Forrest re- plied that there was an eminent example to the contrary, that a distinguished citizea, high in office, ywhom he named, had separated from his wife, and had never tolerated inquiry as to its cause, and he desired me, if any one ever dared to insult me, or question my murity on account of the separation, to call upon im, and he would defendand right me. The ap- parent kindness of this offer led to a somewhat free, jut on mV part, a very sad conversation between us, as to my future course of life. Mr. Forrest said that, perhaps, my vanity would lead meto go upon the stage; | anewered that perhaps it might. He rejoined, substantially,then I was lost, that | would descend, step by step, from bad to worse, and fully justified, es well by the necessity of the case as by truth; for if he believed me to be guilty, such belief, coming from one who knows my cha- racier so well, would afford some presumption against me, It, therefore, seemed to me proper to | deny that Mr. Forrest believed me to be guilty, as | [ had satisfactory evidence that he did not. [was | emboldened to do so by conscious innocence, by faith in Divine protection, and reliance upon the | jnstice of my country, and have not yet felt the de- sire or expectation of an acquittal from the charges of impurity brought against me, unless! shall be able to convince the court and jury, as perfectly, that those charges are preferred in ul-faith, as that they ‘are unfounded in fect. My defence must, in future, | take afirmertone. When | perused Mr. Forrest's afli- davit, evidently framed by himself for publication, imputing to me every grossness and criminality that fancy could suggest, and involving my aged father, my sisters, all that are near and dear to me, I be- came convinced that further forbearance was not my duty, and that, thenceforward, as far as trath would warrant, honor and duty required m= to re- pel all Mr. Forrest’s imputations, to present his proceedings against me in their trae colors, and to deny his sel/-praise, whenever it was unfounded in fact, and refected even indirectly upon me or mine, True it is, 1am a woman aud a wife, and it + may be thought that I defend too firmly. True it is, that Mr. Forrest is yet my husband, and submis- sion to him may be thought obligatory upon me ; but none can deny that in him | must also now re- cognise a bitter and relentless enemy; one who took me from my father’s hearth promising to che- rish and protect me, and now, after wearing out in hhis service all the bright years of my youth, seeks to cast me forth, covered with ufamy, and to en- eure my utter destruction is persecutiag all, even of my nearest kindred, who venture to rd me the reference to what happened after his alleged discovery of my unworthiness, he quoted me as waying thet he treated me “ with compassionate | kindness.” He also asserts that he treated me | » consideration and gentleness due to a | women ;” that he is of an unsuspicious disposition; that he had “always, in his relations with me, been affectionate and happy ;” that he has ‘*fully com- | plied with his obligations ; been, uatil the separa- tion, my constant and affectionate companion; uni- formly attentive, teader and indulgent; that we lived harmoniously, in a spirit of kindness and nee, until such discovery ; and that his c duct has been generous and kindly.” My affida: centains no such idea as that quoted, nor did I ever say anything of the kind ; and the rest of Mr. Forrest's assertions above referred to, are esseatial- jy untrue in all respects. They are most deeply so in respect to every period since about the month of August, inthe year one thousand eight hundred and forty-six, more than two years before he found the Consuelo letter. He speaks of a habit of wri- ting “from her lover and husband, Edwin For- rest.” Twice, and twice only, did he ever #0 write, to my knowledge. The extravagant cha- | racter and manner of Mr. Forrest’s charges against | me lead many to suppose that he is insane ; and | others, perbaps, believe that he is the victim of misrepresentation. | think I know that he is not insane, and I have good reason to be confident that he is not in the least misled. Iam quite sure that | he ie himself the iminediate originator and instiga- tor of all the charges he advances, and that the ncy of others is in mere obedience to his will. | y jon of the issue between myself aad him, will be seen from this: and I trust court, in view of the wide detail of gross and evil imputa- tions in his affidavit, will excuse me for fully en- tering upon its refutation. 1 deeply lament that the practice of the courts permits Mr. Forrest, by his C effidavit, to draw into review, 8 case, } troversy with Mr. Macready, and our privat ter. | course in relation thereto, More deeply still os lament, that in his rege time, he s' privileged to publish his rade invootives sister, for having aflectionately throughout my trials. Mr. Forrest never found me standing between the knees of Mr. Jamison, er with his hands upon my person, or in any immodest position whatever, nor did he ever ask what any such transaction meent, nor did J, on any such occasion, change my position or reply with perturbation, or otherwise, that Mr. Jamison had m examining my phreao- logical developements. I neither know nor believe that Mr. Jamison, on the occasion referred to by Mr. Forrest, or on any other, precipitately with- drew, or that he was then, or at any other time, Jiligently searetted for, or that on any such occa- he was a party toany engagement to make a , or had been invited or expected to accompany ‘Forrest er myeelf to any pl I never wrote jaimst my | by me Mr to Mr. Jamison alter Mr. Forrest found the Con Mr. Forrest never said a word to me al any time in his life about the peculiar position, or suelo letter any position, in which he had found me, or in which I had been with Mr. Jamison, at Cincinnati, not anywhere else. Mr. Forrest never asked me if 1 hed written to Mr. Jamison, nor did I ever call God to witness, or say that | had not so written. All thi id by Mr. Forrest in hig affidavit, and herein above denied, concerning Mr. Ja #on's acts or mine, in reference to said Jamison, Cincinnati, or any where else, is absolutely untrue in every respect ; and my first knowledge of any such | fects existing, even in i ation, wee obtained ‘orrest’s pretended evidence before the ‘yivania Legislature, subsequently to the first of February last (1860.) 1 never knew, nor prior to the present year, did I ever hear, of any alleged “treachery or profligacy” of said Jamison, ot that his character tor veracity was bad, or that he was | deficient in principles or honor in regard to wo- | men, or that he ever was guilty of any misconduct with Mrs. Hunt, or towards her husband, (except | #5 hereinafter stated;) nor do Ladmit my belief of | any of the charges against him, by Mr. Forrest. I | know, from common report, that Mr. and Mrs. Hoft separated, that the lady obtained a divoree from her husband, and afterwards married a Mr. Mossop, and by the latter name has been caseged in leading parte, and respectable theatres. After | the separation of Mr. and Mrs. Hi Mr. Forrest ‘was on terms of the utmest apparent cordiality | Serbeun | ent tee Roventy ae him to | use jw this very state of things, as | he himself stated to me, visited Mrs. Hunt in New | And on the last day that we were in | t. Jamison to dine with us, which invitation was declined. Mr. saw us off in the cars. I have a recol- some period, and | think whilst | would, at length, become criminal. I replied that there was nothing in my past life to warrant his | saying so, ard whatever evil might the eafter befal me, | wished to give him, at that present time, whist | yet had his full confidence, for his satis- faction in such an evil heur—should it ever come | —the strongest proof in my power, that whilst liv- ing with him, I had never deviated from rectitude. Accordingly, Irequested him to write for me the most eolemn paperto that effect, which he could devise, and oflered to pledge myself to its truth. Mr. Forrest, at once, scouted at this idea, and de- clared that he never would have lived with me an | instant, after entertaining the slightest cuspicion of me. Bat, on being pressed, he wrote a paper which I signed. Iread that paper but once, and then rather rapidly. I have no copy of it, nor any precise recollection of its contents. I intended tt to be as strongly worded as poasible,yet my impres- sion, and best present recollection and belief are, that its language only refers to, and denies levity, or mere venial breaches of decoram, and that it does not contain any denial of criminal conduct. I am confirmed in this belief, by the fact, that Mr. Forrest has made allumons to this paver, with a view to my prejudice, twice since the commeace- ment of this action, and has, on both occasions, withheld any copy thereof, or any precise state- ment of its contente. The signing of that paper did not attraet much attention from me, being only connected, in my views, with a future evil event, suggested by Mr. Forrest, but deemed impossible by me; and I cannot remember recurring to even in thought, from the time of signing it, w 1 saw a reference to it in an answer of Mr. Forrest to my action in October last (1850) Mr. Forrest wrote said paper, and my mode of signing makes it easy to write above my signature. From the statements in his affidavit, | suspect that he has ente dated it. 1 deny, absolutely, that Mr. Forrest | ever proposed to me to take an oath attesting my innoceace; on the contrary, it was my proposal to him, as ve explained; and | declare that his statements in his said aflidavit about my having sneered on the occasion of taking any oath, or signing any writing, and his statements about the conversation alleged in his said affidavit, tohave taken place on the occasion of my signing such paper, are wholly untrue. No such transaction ever occurred ; never before December 2ich, 1849, did he ch me with swearing orfspeaking false- | ¥. or with hood at all, with derision or scorn- | fulness, recklessness, or a mocking manner. He never told me in his life, that “* 1 should not want whilst Lconducted myself property. nor that “ he ‘was not disposed to deal with me harshly,” nor did lever say to Mr. Forrest ** what is to become of me.” Inever entreated or requested Mr. Forrest | to spare, or endeavor to spare me, so far as he | could, or at all, the shame or disyrace of any expo- sure of any circumstance whatever, or to remain silent about,or to coaceal, or not to mention the intended separation, or any alledged cauee there- of, or to defer such separation until the latter part of the month of April, 1849, or to any time when he might do se without invi special comment or remark; and I never did, in any way, suggest, advise, or request a postponement of such separa- tion, or seek to defer the same, except as herein- after stated. The time of separation was appointed and fixed upon by Mr. Forrest, and, because | had nO power to prevent it, submitted to by me; first, for the first day of March; again, for the third Monday of March; again for the firet day of April; again, for the twenty-third day of Apri!; and one or two other like appointments were made by him for that purpose, which | am unable precisely to remember. Lach of those appointinents was re- ecinded by Mr. Forrest, of his own motion, and yt ee fa Ra tatime when ti ja) separation, for tl time bei stood fixed Yor the twenty-third of April, Mr. Forrest being, as he informed me,under an G Br nt to perform at the Broadway tnea- tre, New York, for some weeks, commencing upon the last named day, 1 ted to him that if a separation should then take t » it would bably be imputed to is controversy with Mr. Macready; and advised him to permit me to remain with him until the close of such engagement, to which he immediately re- turned his dissent, and stated that the eaid separa- tion should commence when our then present resi- dence was broken up. This amounted to a new appointment of the twenty-eighth or twenty- pinth Me A April as the day for such separation. Never, before our actual separation, did | request that any provision should be made for me, although it is true that, when the separation was alluded to, Mr. Forrest said, casually, ** Of course, I will pro- vide for you"—to which | made no reply; and this was all that ever passed between us on that subject before the separation. When, as just joned, I suggested view which the public might take of the separation, Mr. Forrest repelled the idea with utter scorn. He spoke in this way, as nearly as I can recollect his words: “ Pshaw ' who knows or cares for you; whether you with me, or away from me, or where you live!” To this con- temptuous view of my insignificance [ made no reply. Mur. Forrest never told me that any calamity, con- nected with me, or resulting from my conduct, was what he might have expected, or that my father hed teld him to beware of me, or warned him that my character and education were such that I deceive him; nor did he ever tell me that my fe said any of those thin| ; nor did lever give such sewer concerning same as is allggse in hie davit, or any answer whatever. The whole tement on this subject in Mr. Forres’ wit, oem | part of it, is absolutely untrue. I never heard of my father having said to Mr. Forrest anything against me, or prejudicial to me, until my attorney, in November, 1950, farnished me & copy of Mr. Forrest's affidavit. 1 am certain that my father could not have made, and never did make, the remarks against me alleged by Mr. For- rest. I believe a more affectionate father does not exist, Not One more proud of his children, or more blind to their faulis. He spared no means of his power to give me,the beet advantages, in point of education and mental culure; he me at school with a lady who had in — the daugh- ters of some of the best families in Lagland; and all my arsociates were not only ina station ja life far superior to my own, but of irreproachabie cha- acter. My father never had occasion to, and ne- ver did, reproach me for any impropriety of con- duct, and gould not have supposed’ of euid that / was of itor di My father, the inetance; but he conse: he that my heart was set upon i d to, or overheard, any conversa my father with Mr. Forrest; and there was no pe pg om ha there any piece room of it, wherein an person could be concealed. Tam grieved, the Court, on the ground of its irelevaucy, baa get my father’s denial of me a few days’ de! dupon me. IL me it is this libel upon hit now on board a steamer, om its way to this coun- bk never secreted the alleged letter, or keptit concealed ;nor did the said Ed ever diseover that it d any avowal of any illicit or criminal intercourse. I verily believe that at the time the said Edwin Forrest first came into ession of said Consuelo letter, he was yr grounds upon which to frame some excuse for repudiating me; although I can scarcely believe that he had as yet conceived the design of im- puting unchaste conduct. «* Consuelo,” the heroine of a modern French no- vel, is thereim represented a8 a woman charae- terized by the pighest degree of, amiability, chastity and poriky, teat 4 mins Sen conceive, =. Jan- guage portray, e WO) ignitics Consolation,” when rendered into English. No reason could exist for the adoption of that address in said letter, any vii attentions of said Jamison, after the | except some fancied resemblance between the receipt id Consuelo letter. character of the person addressed and the heroine. ‘The first conversation between Mr. Forrest and The deposition of Mr. Parke Godwin, obtained myeelf, about the Consuelo letter, was later than | by Mr. Fi and presented by him to the Pean- January 20, 1849. The conversation between Mr. | sylvania Legislature, states that about January, Forrest and myself, about that letter, was as stated | 1849, he lent Mr. Forrest this very novel. I am i id former affidavit, and none of the addi- | quite confident that Mr. Forrest so borrowed it in order to satisfy himseif as to the character of the imagi heroine, Consuelo, and theace to determine the practicability of founding upon the letter some ‘ge against me. The character disappointed his wishes, and for the time he aban- doned that attempt. I believe the fact to be, ttat he first saw the Consuelo letter after the 1 Ja- it, or torn it into pieces, or “flung | nuary; I believe that he borrowed the novel, Con- them into her insulter’s face,” or *‘ never seen him | suelo, and wrote to Mr. Jamison about the same afierwards ;” I never verbaily, or otherwise, “‘ad- | time ; I believe he saved himself the trouble of rea the novel, by casually inguiting of Mr. Parke Godwin, dufing their trip to Font Hill, men- tioned in my former aflidavit, as to the character of Consuelo. I believe that, from Mr. Godwia’s account of the heroine, he concluded that the let- ter would not answer any more seriously injurious purpose, and thereupon gre way to the temptation to make it the subject of a painful eveniag for me. His object in borrowing Consuelo could only have been to revive his memory, and assure himself of the character; he had owned and read the book, or heard it read, long before. A few words with Mr. Godwin, who is a highly intellectual person, would have answered this purpose perfectly, After being thus assured on the subject, I presume Mr. me, and the actual seperation, I spoke with him | Forrest cared litle about Mr, Jamison’s answer, and therefore did not await it. There are circumstances connected with Mr. Forrest’s present story, conclusively establishing that the Consuelo letter had nothing to do with eur separation, and that he sentenced me to that sepa- ration on 18th of January, 1549, without the slight est suspicion on his part of any impurity or impro- priety in my demeanor asa wife. Ina word, he expressly mits that he pronounced that senteace because I uttered to him an offensive speech, and for no other cause whatever, He declares expressly that his confidence in my purity was perfect untii he found the letter. He admits that the immediate cause and provocation to his sentence against me, Was my contradicting him on another subject. In relation to the letter which he pretends he had found, he states that oa that evening, “ he questioned the handwriting, and hoped the manuscript was merely an extract from @ licentious French novel. He determined, there- fore, to take no measures on the subject, until he had fully informed himself upon these points. Again he saye:—* This deponent having, after some days’ inquiry, ascertained that the suid letter was in the handwriting of Mr. Jamison, and that no rere of it was extracted from Consuelo, was sroughtto the melancholy conclusion” that his wife was guilty of impurity. Mr. Forrest could not now deny that the 18:h of January, (or perhaps more properly’, the 19th, asit was after midnight,) wes the date of my sentence; nor could he safely assert that he had then referred to the Consuelo letter. The only thing he could do for the purpose of misleading those whe might not closely scrutinize his story, was to asaert, that he had found the letter at thattime. The neces- sity of the case then compelled him to exp! he did not speak of it, and his explanation is, the letter of itself was, in his jud, nt, no ade- quate evidence of impurity; that further inquiry was pecenealy and that “ hopiag” there was an innocent explanation, he “ determined to take no measures upon the subject’ until he could make the requisite inquiries; and yet he is forced to ad- mit that while this detenmination existed, and this hope animated him, he sentenced me to the sepa- ration now existing, and avowedly at the time for a different cause. jis, surely, is enough to estab- lish the fect which I have asserted, that Mr. For- rest bani: me from his side for no cause con- nected with icipurity on my part, or the belief or eneyiclen of it by him. His own words condemn iin The maner in which Mr. Forrest has involved himeelf in this admission, as well as in certain in- consistencies in this part of hi davit, | will ex- ewnaieueg chilly i wot srholy, ta tne efhdavit ing not the ts of Mrs. Underwood and Rate Ga A my return from a perty on the evening of Thurs- dey, January 18th, and that a dispute was over- heard between us after miinight. Mrs. Under- wood testified that, on the next Saturday morning, that is, January the 20th, I missed the Coasuels letter—expressed terror and surprise—showed @ consciousness of detected guilt. 1 presume the intention was, to connect my search for the letter on Saturday morning with the dispute of Toursday night, so as to show that that dispute arose out of my purity being thea questioned. The statements contained in Mr. Forrest's aff- davit, about my going to a drawer, starting back, witesing. an exciamation, being asked a Say by R. twee (now Mrs. eee: wood,) maki a ly thereto, ¢: ssing ness, end wishes, about drawers an letiese ead burning any letters, are, and each and every one of them is wholly untrue, in every respect. Nothing of the kind ever occurred. When Mr. Forrest was making up his present story, he seems to have had these proofs before him. He often refers to them, and he has im- proved upon this story of Mrs, Underwood, con- cerning my acts on Saturday morning, so as to make it account for conduct on his part, which otherwise would appear very inconsistent. He had to make inquiries to ascertain the hand- writing, and to read a novel in two volumes. This, of course, took some time. He says it took some days. Yet, 7 Seeeey evening, he made his ac- cusations, although, in respect to the hand-writing, he had written for information jto Mr. Jamison, at New Orleans, only the same morning. The only mode to make it consistent, is to show some unexpected incident Leng be Saturday, to induce a C3 of purpose; accordingly, Mrs. Unde: "s observations concerning my manner and conduct on Saturday morning, are here introduced. Yet, Mr. Forrest, Mrs. Under- wood, and Mr. Lawson, the procurer of her testi- mony, all unite in saying, that none of her tales reached Mr Forrest’s ears, for more than one whole = after this time, that is to say, until Feb- ruary, . It will be seen from this, that in his present state- ment, Mr. Forrest has greatly perverted the facts, and yet, done himself no service. Whether he found the letter on the eighteenth of January or not, the result is the same; he did not act upon it on that day, yet on that day he decreed the sepa- ration. It is not true, that carefally, or in any way, at Cincinnati, or anywhere else, about my I prese: oe a bundle of letters; nor do I believe that r. Forrest ever thought he had observed any such act. | never entreated or requested Mr. Forrest's silence in relation to any act or conduct of mine, nor did he ever saree to be silent, to shield me from shame, or sufler in silence. 1 deny all his al- legations in these respects. It never was agreed between Mr. Forrest and myself, to occupy as before, the same apartment, to avoid the suspicions or scandalous comments of servants, or to avoid ay consequence, not was anything ever ssid or understood between Mr. Forrest and myself on that subject. The intended separation of Mr. For- rest and myself, was known to the servants from the first; one of them having overheard the dispute on the eighteenth of January, 1849; and immediately afterwards it wastalked of thi it the he borhood. It was not until about a week after that time, that anything was said between us about our conduct in connection with such separation. Thea, for the first time, Mr. Forrest stated to me, that he wished the cause of our separation to be kept a se- cret; that he did not wish it known that any person lived afier impeaching his veracity; that it was no other person's business; that it was our own af- fair, and we had a right to do as we pleased. [ aequiesced, but did not exactly promise obedience. Lremarked that | must mention it to my sister, and might find it almost neceseary to state it to some other friends. He added that he wished no one to know it, and | remained silent. This was be- fore the Consuelo letter was spoken of by Mr For: rest. After that subject was introduced, he made the eame request for silence, and | presume con- sidered me ee having acquiesced, for | answered pretty much as before. Mr. F orrest was never requested by me, efter he spoke of said Consuelo letter, to enter into society with me, nor did he decline so to do. He was never in the habit of going into any seciety, and the only friends we eaw, were those who came to our own house, Subsequently to our retura from Europe, in 1846, Mr. Forrest and I acee; but four invitations to dine @ut together; but, on all other occasions, Mr. Forrest would urge me to go without him; sometimes I did so. The only ia- vitation we 4 after January 18th, 1849, wi ene to sup with Mr. and Mre. . J shed Mr. Forrest if he wished me to as you please;” but I feli too » and feared that T should not be able to control = feelings during 8 whoie 60 I did not go. Mr. Fi t evening. orres went. Mr. Forrest so unifotmly refused all invita- tions, that our friends censed to eek him to visit them. | did not appeal to Mr. Forrest to conduct me to Mr. Godwin’s house, or in any request him to do #0. Oe the auth of “Apri, | asked Mr. Forrest to request Mr. Lawson to a hat grening. Me Fe weat ow return, sai would call in the evening as | desited. He asked why [wished to see Mr. Lawson. Le that as Mir. ‘Lawson had been my father’s friend, | con- sidered that he would be the most proper person for me to request to call for me and conduct me to Mr. Godwin’s. Forrest immediately said, “Pil take you there myself; to which proposition I moet ‘gladly assented. ir. Lawson however called, as he had been directed, and I told him why I had the interview, but that I, of course, preferred that Mr. Forrest should take me. Mr. Lawson agreed with me that this was best. The affidavit of Mr. Jamison, to which Mr. For- rest refers, wes made without any solicitation or interference on my and a copy of it sent, as 1 believe, to a New York newspaper for publica- tion, The person to whom it was sent by Mr. Jamison, handed if to my counsel; and I intend that it shall be presented to the court in this case. It was not prepared for, or even placed before the Pe Ivania Legislature, to my knowledge or be- lief. Once, during the interval between the 18th of January, and the end of April, 1849, Mr. Forrest woke of some person going to Kentucky or some tant State, to obtain a divorce for ia yatibili- ty of temper. lasked him if he wished a divorce, and added that if he did, 1 would go with him out of the State wherever it could be obtained. He replied that he did not desire it. I presume! said this more than once. But I never made, oone Henry Wikofl, or otherwise, direetly or indi ys any proposition, written or verbal, to leave the country, to renounce Mr. Forrest's name, or to leave my allowance to his gene’ y;, nor did [ ever propose or to make no opposition to aay application to Legislature of Pennsylvania, aliak alleged or should allege incoatineace against me; nor did I ever make or authorise any pro) 1forany amicable or other arrangement irith Mr. Forrest about a divorce, after he com wae? his application to the Pennsylvania Legis- lature. It is not true that, when Mr. Forrest was at home, the house was closed and the family retired at 10 or ll o’clock. Ever since our marriage, we were in the habit of keeping very late hours, as all our friends know; and this habit was continued even until the week of our separation. Un the Sunday prior to the separation, some of Mr. For- rest’s friends,who dined with us, did not leave our house until after four o’clock the next morning. Iv is untrue that our house was a scene of revelry and intemperance during Mr. Forrest’s absence. Mr. Forrest had always, siace the time we tirst went to live in Twenty-second street, expressed a desire that if | wished to invite ladies, | should do soinhis absence; andit had been my custom to do so for years, as 1 found it almost impossible to induce him to go into society, and his absence on professional duties was the only excuse I could make for his refusing to visit his frends. AsI generally accompanied Mr. Forrest when he left home, the opportunities which I had for seeing the few friends who were still kind enough to conuaue their acquaintance with me, under these circum- stances, Were very rare. I never. left Mr. Forrest’s house or returned to it, day or night, in disguise. I never let myself in nor had a night key with which to do it.” It was late in April, 1849, that we first found the latch- key of our house. It was never used nor needed. The imputation in Mr. Forrest's affidavit, that [ ever visited a house of ill-fame is shamefully ua- true. Ihave not declared, when bills were pre- sented to me, that I didnot care, and that what- ever the amount Mr. Forrest must pay them. I have had occasion to defer a payment, and have said that in case of accident to me, Mr. Forrest would be liable. I have not incurred any extrav- agant or unnecessary bills, since the separation; and ifpayment of any bills of mine has been re- quested of Mr. Forrest, | am quite sure he has not complied with the request ‘There is not the slightest truth in the charge of intemperence made against me by Mr. Forrest in | his said affidavit; | never was intoxicated, many degree, in my life; I never heard of such @ charge, from eny quarter, until Mr. Forrest’s affidavits printed in February or March, 1850. - It is true, that Captain Caicraft, an old friend of my father, visited me and my sister occasionally, that he once dived with us, and once helped to carry a tray, as mentioned in his affidavit; it is true, that Semuel Marsden Raymond spent one night at our house; it istrue, that Mr. Richard Willis, his sister-in-law, Mrs. N. P. Wilths, Mrs. Voorhies, and myself, on one occa~ sion, under cireumstances perfectly justifying the act, did stay up a whole pight until daylight. It is true, that Mr. Mrs . Willis, together and alone, have visited me; it may be, that on some occasion, Mr. Heary Wikoff came home with me in a@ carriage on an evening. Dr. Rich, on some few occasions, 1 am not sure of more than twice, visited me, professionally, in my sick cham- ber, after ten o’clock at night, daring a period of six weeks that I was confined with @ severe attack of inflammation of the lunge. igetsiten naekey Gatieg my said A grad t my sister Margaret home from a party at his own house, atabout eleven 0” night, in winter; Mrs. Hackley, as | pind he os be- lieve, had desired Mr. Hackley to inquire how I was; there was no fire except in my cham- ber, and, for the purpose of introducing hiay into @ warm room, and facilitating the mes- sage or inquiry of Mrs. Heckley, be was asked into my chamber, where, in presence of my sister, he remained @ few utes. Mr. Hackley did thi the basement, as hereinafter ex, And with these ex: Laver that none of the facts stated in Mr. Forrest’s aflidavit on infor- mation derived from Mrs. Underwood and lobert Garvin, or from the affidavits or either or those persons, or as timony or evidence, or stated in Mr. davit to have been known, seen, or heard, by either of those two sims gy as having attracted the attention, or excited the suspicions of domestice— ever occurred or hi . Lo the best of my know! and belief, none of the matters alleged by Mr. Forrest, upon information from the persons named, Underwood and Garvin, or a# having been testified to, or known by them, or either of them, have ever been sworn to, by them, or either of them, in such a manner as to re: them responsible to the laws of this, or any other State: whenever they venture so to testify, I can effectually contra- dict and them, as i am well aseured. ‘When | first came to my } in Sixteenth street, it wae in a very unfini state, and a whole month elapsed before we used any door for en- trance or exit but the basement. We used the wereitrorteete series the Sap, becuton ne pattors ses durin; ays use va nish De. Hackley cailed —_ or twice du this period, one evening he came just as cy hy to tea; he joined us, and, shortly after, Mr. Stevens called, and rang the bell, (which had that day been put up.) The ser- vant, as Iam and ve, on admitting him, asked him to come down to tea, but he de- clined, and went into the parlor, which was not ena furnished. When we had om aglosy Dr. ‘cley said, “Il have an engage) , 80 will not go up stairs, or I shall stay too long;” and he left by the same door which he had eatered, and which we had all been in the habit of using until that day. [believe Mr. Sievens was the firet person who had been admitted by the hall door. Andre v Stevens, named in affidavit of Mr. Forrest, is the same person who aided Mr. Forrest in the iraneactionvot kis letter to me in December, 1849; he has been Mr. Forrest’sinstrument through- out this affair; has reviled myself and my sister shamefully in the newspapers; and, as | am advised and verily beheve, he can be effectually impeach- ed whenever he shall appear in a court of justice, and depose to my 4 of the matters which Mr. For- rest asserts on his authority. There is not any truth whatever in the statements alleged in Mr. Forrest’s affidavit to have been made by him, said Stevens. I did not intend, by anything in my for ner affi- davit, to a. the idea that, after the 18th of January, 1849, Mr. Forrest gave me any reason to believe that he would relent, or that his affections had returned to He manifested, in the pre- sence of others, kindness, and external rere generally; he sometimes seemed kind, for a hen we were alone. But I felt, all al » that paration must take place, accompanied a faint hope that it might not endure forever. His manner was not that of an honorable man toa guilty wife; he made me in every way subservient to his pleasure and convenience. In relation to the testimony of the Reverend E. L. M ‘Spo- ken of in Mr. Forrest’s affidavit, the follows:—I was on terms of the greatest friendship with him; I conceived him to be an honorable re Y vpeepeenice, und fend Sor in my y to juced, manifest a regard for me of the kindest description. If the Censuelo letter had not been found, these are so kindly, affectionete, and familiar, they would have answered Mr. Forrest's purpose ‘about as well, Lien ln FR ay pure andinnocent. I re- member saying t¢@ Mr. Magoon that Mr. Forrest wes variable in his demeanor towards me; sometimes phn ney 5 —— imes he i af- fectionate, and frequently treated me more like a sister then a wife. I understand he has testified to my having told him “ that for several months pre- jena | BN bad known eac! only as e.” 5 ag oy im. J presume ° made him the he has re- I have no doubt my ter was misunderst really thinks that I and unbe coming communication whic! I did not make it. 3 = Is at 23 33 33 F or to any one else, was nt. _ Forrest, or hie it. rectgeste, @ separation; 1 not e ot willing to die; 1 wes 5 1 was more than they do There never was any under- standing that Mr. Forrest was to pay my board Mr. Fi at our mee! in the street, did not speak, nor did I reply to him, as in his affidavit is stated, except that he did revile my sister as he al- leges. Sir. Levens one a to me Len Mr. Forrest could ngt dispose of real estate without m: a= ture to the deed of conveyance; he said aire pose you would not retuse hist” To which: I re- plied, ** Of course not.” . Stevens told me, @ few days after this, that Mr. Forrest intended to request Mr. eagwiok to draw up a deed of settle- ment, 80 that it [ were in Europe, I could rely upon having my allewance regularly. Mr. Stevens told me, on the Cage gm which he brought me Me. Forrest’s letter of ember 24th, ise that Mr. Forrest had seen Mr. Sedgwick, and had ascer- tained from him that I could not, by any deed, le- gally sign away my right of dower, and that the only way Mr. Forrest could settle the matter, and obtain full right over his own property, was by ob- taining a divoree. Idid not ¢ uny offer, nor did Mr. Forrest make any declinature on this sub- ject, except as I have above stated. It is true that Mr. Forrest offered me one of three houses in Twenty-second street, (which rented at that time for three hundred and seventy-five dollars each a year), and five hundred dollars a year to live upon; of course, I declined the offer. My present course of life is not prodigal, nor reckless, nor do! give expensive entertainments to any persons, or receive or entertain any person or pes of loose or degraded character, as Mr. ‘orrest untruly alleges. We have little time to receive visiters duringthe day,fbut we are always at home to any friends who may callin theevening. As we dine early, and, as during all my life I have taken supper, we have that meal every night at ten o’clock; if there happen to be any visiters with us, they are usually asked to join us. Twice only since we have had the house in Sixteenth street, have we invited any number of persons in an evening, and then they came socially. I never pretended to give aries. As to entertaining or receiving women whom Mr. Forrest cherges with being unworthy, and gentlemen against whom he alleges criminality, it is impossible for me to avoid dving 80, unless | would exclude myself from all society, even in- cluding my own sister. Many of Mr. Forrest’s charges are doubtless made for this express pur- , and I consider it my right, as it is really ne- cessary to my safety, to resist this attempt to ex- clude me from society. Mr. Forrest nas furnished conclusive evidence to me, that he makes charges without believing them to be true. For instance, his proofs furnished to the jislature of Pennsyi- vane, in March, 1850, implicate, among many others, Mr. Henry Wikoll, Dr. Rich, and Dr, Hack- ley. ih his libel, preseated to the Philadelphia Court, i August jast, he named eight, and in his recriminatory answer to my action for a divorce, in October last, he named six participators in my alleged guilt, omitting Dr. Hackley in the first, and all these three gentlemen in the latter; thereby showing that he did not believe the charge against m. And) then, on the loth of November, 1560, he swore to his said affidavit in this action, egaia implicating all three of them, and accompenied it with # recriminatory answer in the same ection, omitting ali their names; 80 that, in this very action, and on the same day, he charged them, and gave legal notice that, on the trial, he would not attempt to prove them ‘guilty. {[n his Philadelphia libel, from which Dr. Hackley’s name is omitted, he states that he does not know the name of any of the guilty participators not therein named; thus expressly declaring that he did not believe the charge against him. The charges of keeping unworthy company, and of evil habits and character, made against my sister Margaret, by Mr. Forrest, are wholly untrue. He never made such charges until the present year, to my knowledge or belief itis also untrue that | ever made parties for the purpose of bringing Mrs. Voorhees into society. 1 used to meet ali or nearly all the ladies of my acquaintance at her rooms in Great Jenes street, where she boarded with Mrs. logham for two years prior to our taking the house in Sixteénth street. The character of her asseciations may be judged from the fact that J hold the letters of Judge Conrad and Mr. Ma- goon, the witnesses of . Forrest, written since our separation, and speaking of her in the kindest terms. She has been a chorister in one of the Episcopal churches for seven years past. It would not become me to give a list of her respectable friends, but I may be permitted to name those | can at the moment remember of her party oa the 18th January, 1849, on my return from which, | was sentenced to separation. The; Mr. Geor, Hail formerly Mayer of Brooklyn, Hall, Mr. Hall. and lady, Mr. Valentine G. Mail, Mrs. Hall, Miss Hall. . Mr. Voorhees, Mrs. Voorhees, the Misses Voor- eee. Mr. and Mrs. Wm. C. Bryant. Mr. and Mrs. Parke Godwin. The Rey. Mr. Bellowa, Mrs. Bellows. The Rey. S. Parker. Mre. C.M. Kirkland, Miss Kirkland. Mr. and Mrs. N. P. Wulis. Miss Apne C. Lynch. Mr. and Mrs. Henry Swift, of Brook}; wax and Mrs. Robert Watson, Miss Mr in Britton, Miss Britton. Mr and Mre, Thoms , Mr. Charl naahens, i ileeta Iago ir. ies le Monsieur and ee me Troy. Mr. and Mrs. Le Kite Sedg- Oppenhiem. hman, The Rev. J. T. Headiey, Mr. Tweedie. Thave already stated that Me James Lawson, and his . Forrest states that, on Mr. Forrest's friend, were there, also. the key of my own bureau, whi into the lock, would not turn in 1 was then ob- liged to have it picked by a locksmith. His said letter is in my possession. At the time of Mr. Forrest's separation from me, he was engeged in a furious controverey with Mr. Macready, which ultimately led to vio- lence and bloodshed, and the loss of many H during the whole progress of that controversy, = Sy ag his utmost to attract public atten- to it. Mr. Forrest asserts, on information and belief, that previously to December, 1849, [ had, on fre- quent and to divers a musrepre- rented the cause of our n,and had as- cribed it to the misconduct t. Forrest, and had alleged that h ooeee, oma, ition to his courre ina with Mr. ieee ’ statee further, that i { he ‘compe lied to di vin pee e inant of Mr. Forest 1 be alvelgecly wntrees ia Tance, about her. separation "thatthe assigned which Thad an} was.my contradicting In the next place, Mr. Forrest has ne- inowlege oraseu. r. Forrest’s remark: ver offered any proof of the said assertion, made by him on information end belief; and if he had any informant he could produce him. Prior to December 24th, 1849, I never did directly or indi- rectly ascribe our separation to the misconduet of ‘orrest, unless the above statement to my sis- Mr ter was such ascription, or alleged from m\ with one did about the ready controvi been an advantage to Mr. Forresi that it arose ition to his course 1n the controversy ready, or im any way misrepresent the cause of suid separation. I insist that if any ute our separation to a disagreement it would: have 's repwtation. All his friends knew that ti i z pode ALS. a jhe separa ion was his act ; and had promised cy on my part, to write and defend me aguinst insult. 5 Tepponen peached wife, pu arbitra) placed it wil me, in case husband. This for no new paint an: d to be an innocent God unin. it away without i tie cause by the Forrest’s character and conde ciate worst light thet could have been reflecced ui — It was, l' submit, an extenuation of his eer rais. nt mis- conduct, if any one, in charity towards him, repre- sented cready business, which induced a separation. on this head :—It was blic would impute our separati we to see to that, & Tus i An ould obse ve that the one would ex no other cause was t it. it we had a disagreement about the Ma- I y Told Mr, Forrest thai 0] r. Forrest that such would probably b be the case, and he must have think | can prove clearly that he never believed me to be author of any such representatioy that the vindication of his character from this or any other imputation had nothing to do with hie application for a divorce, us he now uatruly pre- tends a His counsel and mine, met on the twent: ninth of January, 1850, as stated in my former afli- Lam informed by my counsel, and veril: believe, that the counsel of Mr. Forrest davit. that very le gently insinuated charges of deviatioas from strict}prepriety, not recognizable at law, would probabl; ly be deemed sufficient by committee, and that Mr. Theod ore islative the le; Sedgwick, pro- fessing to act for Mr. Forrest, gave my couagel the most ositive assurances that even these cha! and the proofs by which they might be pass, should be scrupulously couce aled and forever hidden from the public view. My eo to aslam informed and believe, to the great dissatisfaction of Mr. Sedgwick, replied that to conceal the legis- e action of a sovereign State, seemed to him a vain undertaking ; that if attempted and otherwise practicable, the public attention would be drawn to this apparently groundless divorce, and not only the members of the Legislature, but Mr. Forrest himself, would be constrained in their own cation to publish the grounds, the proofs, a Forrest’s consent, amounting to a virtual confes- sion. My counsel hes his correspondence with Mr. Sedgwick, dated in January and February, 1850 ; and I can prove all these facts full: the written Mr. Sedgwie! justifi- Mrs. ¥ y. Ihave piciogeeg of Mr. Forrest's counsel, sent to me through Mr. William C. Bryant, in February, 1950, one clause of which is:— “ Fourthly—Mr. Forrest will pledge himself to some mutual friend, that he will not lieity to the charges or testimony ce ation ; and will prevent any pubiici by others now or hereafter. that the application will be couched in given gages, also, them areata at le en- the most delicate and general terms possible, and contain no chi object of obtai ig a divorce. which may be necessary to the “ Mr. Sedgwick will, at any time that may be desired, communicate with i ton to this matter.” sents, but for * obtainia; think Mr. Forrest so wea. ¢. O’Conor in rela- It will be seen, therefore, that “the object” of all his threats and invectiyes, from the 24th of De- cember, 1849, to the middle of February, 1850, wae pot to vindicate his character,as he now repre- a divorce.” I do not 4s to abandon his wife in New York, and to seek from the Legislature of another State, a law exonorating his character frorn her reproaches. diflerent. When Mr. Forrest called at Mr. Godwin’s house, onthe 3lstof May, 1849, to see me, he said that he should, in all probability, remove his sistere from Philedelphia to Font Hil ill, some time His object must have been the summer, end that they were to keep house for him there. continued the building or fi house, and some time during the month of No- hased additional furniture for his library thet 8 Ir ther As Mr : Macready, | ‘We ys 349, pure: ly strongly disa in Edin! for the manner in which he spoke of Mr. Ma fries to his (Macready’s) arrival in thi: I objected on all occasions, in determination to stage, and to Mr. Forrest’s leavii 848. he tncormpln en much. But from an early period in 1848, hope em. r. Forrest chooses to make public our in- tercourse in relation to his controversy with will state the facts. certainly had serious diflerences about Mr. Forrest's ae ah rape 1. PPO! i gh, in 1846, and requonntral inmost deserted me. Tnever said to James Lawson that hed tion, taken before Joseph vember, 1850, is utterly untrue. of the kind, nor anythi blance to it, Lawson. 1 ever took for this statement, the course sued in this busine truth of his said rent me in ea: ying i peetece his part. javit im that this Ny izé EL 3 * All that Mr. to on that subject, in ‘a ot the I i ii | F z i Es 5 i Hf £ Ei i 3 Ps ago ted with hi a il ist I am ivformed and believe, that he Mr. oo sin’ promiscuows. pompanien, pro us have Macready drivea trom the money at Bos. leans, 3. see ij f to Mr | Boren) cee f La 3