The New York Herald Newspaper, June 5, 1851, Page 6

MMPORTANT LEGAL PROCEEDINGS. The Willis and Webb Case in the Superior Court. Superior Court. Before Mon, Judge Sandford. Smith Coddington and Mary I. his wife, against James Wetsm Webd.—The complaint of the plaintiffs above- ‘Mamed respectfully shows—That the plaintiff, Mary I, is the eldest daughter of Henry Inman, late of the city of Blew York, deceased; that on the 16th day of May, 1544, ghe intermarried with the plaintiff, Smith Coddington; Ghat at the time of her said marriage. she was between 17 ‘end 18 years of age, and resided with her perents in t Grocawich street, in the city of New York and continued 0 reside with her parents, after her marriage, until bout the month of April, 1545, when, with her said hus- aad, she removed to the village of Rahway, inthe State @ New Jersey, where they have ever since resided; that ‘Shere are three children of said marriage now living, all @f whom are girls; that before her marriage, amd, to the Dest of her recollection, some time during the year 1843, ‘@ correspondence by notes or letters had been carried on Tetween the plaintiff, Mary I, and Nathaniel P. Wil- Mis, of the city of New York, without the knowledge of hher parents; that sbout the latter part of that year, or tm the beginning of the year 1644, the fact that such cor_ Teepondence had been carried on became known to her father, who advised that it should be, and it was imme istely discontinued. ‘That the notes, or letters, which had beem written to said Nathaniel P. Willis by the plaintiff, Mary L, remained in the posscesion of said Willis, at the time of the termina tion of the said correspondence, und the father of the said plaintiff, Mary I., deeming it most appropriate that tthe said correspondence of his daughter with the said ‘Witlis should be surrendered; but not believing or assert fipg that she had ever been guilty of criminal intercourse or that the seid letters contained any evidence of an such conduct on her part, inthe month of June, 1345, Tequested the defendant, James Watson Webb, anid George Buckham, of the city of New York. whom he re garded as his personal friends, to obtain the said letters from the raid Nathaniel P Willis and when obtained, to deliver them tohim. That the said James Watson Webb and George Buck! um undertook such rervice. ‘That as the plaintiffs are informed and believe, in pur weance of such request, and with no other authority whatever, the said George Buckham nddreswed u note to the said Nathaniel P. Willis, requesting him to meet the said James Watson Webb and George Buckham, at the office of said Buckham, in the city of New York; that the @aid Nathaniel P. Willis was not apprised of the purpose for which he was requested to meet said James Watson in said note went to aid Buckham’s office, where he met ~eaid Webb and Buckham; that the said Nathaniel P *Wiilis was then informed by said James Watson Webb and Gecrge Buckham that the father of the plain- tiff, Mary I., had become aware that previous to her Marriage, she had been corresponding with seid Willis, and that it was his wish that the said Willis should deli- ver to them. to be handed to bim, all letters and cor- respoodence in the bands of aid Willis, which he had | ThAt baving been mentioned in some newspaperarticle | ever at.any time received from her. ‘That said Nathaniel P Willis stated that he had in his possersion the notes or letters which had been received by bim from the plaintiff, Mary I., and that he was per- feotty willing to deliver them up, as requested; but not | of New York, of said article, several of the friends of the plaintiffs came to them at their home, in the village of | Rahway, and spoke of said publication as referring to the plaintiff, Mary I., and expressed their sympathy that sbe should have been thus assailed; aud within the week ensuing the said publication, the plaintifly became aware. to their extreme grief, that not only in the village where they reside, but in the city of New York, and imely grave ‘That within two days aftor the publication, in the city elsewhere. it was publicly and notoriously reported aad auwumed that the plaintiff, Mary I., was the person re- ferred to in said artiele as the victim of seduction. And the plaintiff, Mary I,, of her own knowledge, and the plaintiff, Smith Coddington, of his perfect confidence and very soon & topic of common public conversation; pepers, or any of them, or any copies or extracte of, o that the pisintii, Mary L., is the person in salt article intended and referred to as the person who had been seduced by said Nathaniel P. Willis, and whose ruin hed broken her father’s heart. and brought him to an un- from them, or any of them. And that the plaintiffs may have such further, or such other relief in the premises as to thie Court shall seem meet and proper. HORACE F. CLARK, Attorney for plaintiffs. City and County of New York, ss:—Smith Coddington and Mary I. his wife, the plaintiffs abovenamed, being severally duly sworn, say that the foregoing complaint is true of their own knowledge, except as to the matters which are therein stated on information or belief, and as | to those matters, that they believe it to be true. SMITH CODDINGTON. MARY I. CODDINGTON. Sworn before me this 26th day of May, 1851. Wu. H. Sranus, Commissioner of Deeds. Smith Coddington and Mary I. his wife, against James Watson Webs.—Summons for Relief. —To the defendant :— You are hereby summoned ang required to answer tho complaint in this action, of which a copy is herewith and belief, solemnly assert and declare that it is abso yutely and unqualifiedly umtrue that the plaintiff, Mary L., was ever seduced by said Nathaniel P. Willis, or that | "he ever had any improper association or connection whatever with the suid Willis. And the plaintiffs further mont positively and unequivocally assert that there is no foundation in truth for any charge of want of virtue and chastity made against the plaintiff, Mary I And the plaintiffs further, in like manner, assert that it is a«bsolutely and unqualifiedly untrue that the father of the suid plaintiff, Mary I., became heart-broken, | or that his death was in any manner caused or expedited by reason of any correspondence or association which had taken place between the said Nathaniel P. Willis, and the said plaintiff, Mary I. On the contrary, the Plaintiffs assert that,tothe latest hour of his life. her said father justly entertained the moat undoubted con- fidence in her integrity and virtue, and that he never at any time made any allegation against the plaintiff, Mary [., in reapect of her said correspondence with suid Willis, except that of the admitted indiscretion of having been a party to auch correspondence, without the know- ledge of her parents, while an inmate of her father’s { served upon you; and to serve @ copy of your answer to the raid complaint om the eubseriber, at his office, No* | 6S Wall street, in the city of New York, within twenty days after the service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service ; and if you fail to answer the said complaint within the time afcresaid, the plaintiffs in this action will apply to the court for the relief demanded in the complaint. Dated June 2. 1851. HORACE F. CLARK, Ptaintiff's Attorney. Smith Coddington and Mary I, his wife,vs. James Watson Wels —On reading the complaint in this action, duly | Yerified, and the affidavits of George Buckham, Jane | Inman, and Holbert Bmales, made on behalf of the plain- | tiffs, order that the defendant, James Wataon Webb show cause before this court, at & special term thereof, to be heid at the City Hall, in the city of New York, on the 6th day of June instant at 10 o'clock in the fore- noon, of a4 scon thereafter as counsel cam be heard, why he should not be ordered forthwith, upon oath, and under the direction of one of the Justices of this Court, to deliver over to Andrew Warner, Esquire, of the city of New York, or to euch other person, of approved hovor | i | house, and under age. And the plaintifs further state, that the plaintiff Mary I., at the period of writing said letters, was of the age of about sixteen years, had recently quitted board. ing sehool, and was wholly inexperienced in the usages of society. That the seid Nathaniel P. Willis was a literary and professional writer of considerable celebrity and was the author of many works of poetry und fiction, which had been the subject of great admiration in the circle in which the plaintiff, Mary I., lived and visited. ‘That the said Nathaniel P. Willis was regarded by the piaintif! Mary I.,as ocoupying an eminent position im the world of taste and letters; and from the fact that he was an acquaintance of her father, and a visiter at his Webb and George Buckbam, and at the time appointed | house, and that the plaintiff, Mary I, hed never heard | | his standing asa man cf virtue and character brought | in question; and from the further fact that the plaintiff, Mary I., was on terms of intimacy and friendship with the wife of the said Willis, (who was cognizant of her correspondence with him) she did not even imagine that & correspondence with him of the kind which subse | quently ensued. could, in any manner, be made the foun- having been informed <f the object for which his pre- | gence bad been desired, he had not looked them up; an appointment was then made between the said parties. for the said Willis to meet the said Webb and Buckh am, at the offiee of the latter, on the following day, to deliver @ver the letters in his possession, whieh be had reeeived from the plaintiff, Mary I., to the said Webb and Buck- ‘ham, to be by them delivered t her father. ‘That, (a5 the plaintiffs are imformed and believe.) om the day following the last mentioned interview. the aid Nathaniel P. Willis again attended at the hour ap- Pointed, at the office of said George Buckbam. and there met the said James Watson Webb aad Georg Buckham ‘That the said Willis brought with bim a package in» Peper cover or envelope, which. x» the piaiat!tfs are in- formed and bolieve, contained all the notes or letters in his possession, which he had received tr m che pinintiff. Mary 1., end the said Willis th » aed the anid Webb and Buckham to which of them he shoukd deliver suid package, for her father; that the ssid Webb replied that he would take the packnge. stating that he bad the direetions of the said plaintiff Mary L, to reeeive them imber behalf. This being a+seuted to by said Buckham, “the said Willis sealed up the anid package, and de. Aivered the same, #0 sealed. to said James Watson Webb, to be by him immediately delivered to the father of the plaintiff, Mary I intent and for no other purpose That the said James Watson Webb therenpon. fur the purpose and upon the trust that he would make ae immediate (eli very thereof to the father of the piaintul, Mery I. amd for no other purpore. reeeived the raid package of Letters and correspondence; but notwithstanding the trust upon which be reesived them. be hus ever siuce retained ad now hes them in his possersiou and with no other | | | dation for censure or reproach. of said Nathaniel P. Willis as the author of a work of fiction then just published, she wrote a mote to said Willis to disavow the authorship of such work. That the said Willis replied to said note, and s correspondence | which thus commenced continued for the period of about two months, when the fact of its existence be. came known to her parents; that although she has no Particular recollection of the contents of her letters te said Willis, she believes that they may contain some | statements or passages entirely imaginative ; but which, by false application or perversion of their meening: might be construed to her prejudice; amd upon which the eaid James Watson Webb has, in the article from his newspaper, hereinbefore alleged, based a charge of im- pority ageinst her which she most solemnly avers tobe \otally without foundation in trath. And the plaintiffs further state, that the said James Watson Webb has not, nor ever had, any right or title to the ssid notes, or letters, or any of them, or any right. permision, or authority, to open the sealed package which outwined them: nor has he ever had any right or permission to inspect. read or exhibit. or make known the contents of said notes, or letters, or any of them, or avy part thereef. or any right or title to the custody thereof, otherwise than as the confidential friend or agent of the father of the pinintiff, Mary I, apon th ape rial trust and confidence reposed in him by her said father that he would obtain the same from the said nd immediately band the same over to-her ald father Nevertheless, the said James Watson Webb, withoat any right. title, permission or authority whatever, and in violation of the trust and confidence reposed in-him by the father ofthe pisintitf, Mary L, an¢ without the knowirdge or consent of the eurviving parent of the said or iter of them, has, xs the plaintiffé are in- and believe, opened the package comteining the said notes and letters. bas rend the aid notes and let- ters, and bas exhibited the same, or some of them, or | has readthe suse, or some of them, ot some parts or ‘That for several years before aud up to the pertod of, | part thereof.to one. er two, or three, or more persons, thie Geoense, the father of the plsiotif€ Mary I, had been afflicted with chronic asthma and enlargement of the heart. whereby his constitution bad become greatly impaired. That berides. within « few months afte: (ve Geiivery of maid Ietters by raid Nathaniel P. Wil aid James Watson Webb. the fof Une eal) pha tiff, Mary L., was seized with an now'e disease of the kid neys, which, acting upon his impaired physical constita- tion. cammed hie death on the sevevteenth day of Janu- ary, 146 ‘That between the time of the delivery of said package Of aotes and letters by the said Willis to the said Wobb and the time of the decrse of the said Uenry Inman, be wad desirous that the same sbould be de livered to him; and with tha ri Pequested and authorised his friend the said ‘ge Buckham, to call on anid Webb. and to request trom him the delivery of the said package. That it Bucknam accordingly called on said Webb and requesied bum to deliver up said package to the mid Henry [oman That «aid Webb im repiy stated to said Buckham that suid ly trem were among his papers. and that he would look them up and Geliver them over ae requested; bat moth-tanding said promise, said Webb did not deliver rams to (he xaid Henry Inman. or to the mid Buckhem iu behalf, but retained them in hi. possesion ‘That some time after the decease of ber nid father, the mother of the plantiff, Mary I being de that said package of * aod letters should be deil gored to her by salt Webb requested and eubh the said Borkham seain to cay tain the detitery thereof That anid Yurcbam did ao. cordingly call on maid Webb ard ape reynerted «ach delivery, and said Webb then made similar statement to mid Backham as to the letters being wou mt hand and ‘again promised to look them up and @ diver (hem over as requested. But, notwithstanding the second promive ‘the eaid Webb has never deliverrd raid packages of \o\ bot still retains them ‘That the said James Watson Febh i wiitor and pro- prictor of s newspaper called Thr Morning Courier and New York Enquirer, and the eaid Nativaniet P Wille i Likewise an editer and proprictor of a uewspaper © the Heme Journal, which «aid uewepap care priated end publiched in the city of Yow bork, aud exteasively clr culated throughout the Usied States and elsewhere ‘That from articles publiched iy their respective m ropa pers, it would appear that untrwodiy reintions hare for some time ¢ tisted between ped Veoh aed said Wile, but the plaintiff: are not. mur |) cétber of them in auy WAY OF manner connected therewith or eriyousible there- for, nor have they or either of taom corer at way thine oF ip any manner intermed tii th pwn And the plaintiffs furber s'«). thatthe plaintiit. Mary Tha pever epoken or eort-ep: oda oii She maid Natha- niel P. Willis since her we'd mes rring That the pisintiff, Mary I Koowe the anld Janes Watson W dof ber (a\bor std mss Visiter et her father's house, from the period of her earliort Fecoliection, but never formed mny particular aequnint ance with bim wntil the year 1644 whea traveiling ia Bugiand, in company with ber baiver, o ot bim upon several coccasions; and upon une ocrasion. in wha. year, while travelling tn Sectiand. the raid Webb aud the piaine tif, Mary L, with her father. pameod « frtwight st Murthly Castle. an quests of Sir Williaa, Deomnond Stewart, bat Inited Mareh, 1845, rhe nhance with said Webb ‘That on the 16th dey of May, 1551 the said James Watson Webb wrote aud published. ju bie waid paper, called the Morning Courier ond New York of that date, an article entitled © The Lindon Times Dow Book, 20d the Home Journal.” scopy of whic orvicis ls horas annexed. marked tehedale A,amd to which the paivtids pray lone lo refer, ae part of thia their com paint And the plaintiile charge, that mpoo the appearance nett. 5 matter if memae ° a his ma maid Webb aod ob aten it news Enquirer, rived 5 in the city of New York, or elsewhere And the plaintiffs farther stete, that in further vio intion of bis dety and of the trust and confidence so re. oved in and secepted by him, as afocesmid, the said James Watson Webb, on the nineteenth day of May, one hourand eight hundred snd fifty one, by a statement published by bi in bis «aid newspaper of that date, pzo- posed to place the aforensid letters before George P. Morris, of the eity of New York, and to prove their iden- tity, and t cne of said letters in the hands of said Morris for his perusal (such offer beiag arowedly made, as appears from the article in raid newspaper containing er), for the purpore of procuriug from said Mor. ris, iu the absence of the plaintiffs, and for the parpose of newspaper publication, a repert establishing the trath of the chorge made agninst the plaintiff, Mary 1, and whieh charge sheagsin most solemuly avers to be ab- ure and groundless. ‘That annexed hereto aod marked schedule B, it 8 copy of the article published by «aid Jamoa on Webb. in his raid news: tof May the nineteenth. one thousand eight hundred and fifty-one, and whieh the plaintiffs a part of this their eomplaint aintiffs claim and insist that the anid aotes ers bell 9 them, or to the said piai Mary t the same are their property, and thas th by law entitled to the possession and custody thereof, leave to mak he And they further state, that onthe twenty-first day ueand eight hundred and fit: otes and letters to be demanded from but thet he did not deliver ted that he would of May, on paid raid Jumes Wateon Web them, but in to sueh demand. » repl look them up and deliver them to the plaintiffs, or ome of them. at the proper time. Thet the eald last mentioned demand was wade atthe office of caid Webb, in Wall street, in the city of New York; and they charge, on im formation and belief, that the said Web. at the time of puch demand bad the notes and levers at his said of fice. in bie custody ant cottrol And th ther «tate, that from the aforesaid pro ceedings id James Watson Webb, the plaintiffs are apprebem ive and #o ebarge that he has made or caused, permitted or suffered to be made some copy or copies of re, or of some of one of them. or some from the same, of from some or one of them, aod that unlers restenined by the order and in tuetion of this honorable Court, he will make some far. ther cr other unjustifiable and unwarrantable ase of «aid notes and letters, or of any copies of oF extracts there- from. which he may have made, or permitted to be made, and that he ovght, therefore, to be restrained aad en- Joined q# hereinafter mentioned. And the sald plaintiffs claim, shat during the pendeney Of this action. ( he said letters ought to be piaced in the thom Of approved homor and integrity dis of some for safe keeping The plaintiffs, therefore. demand judginent ‘That the said James Watson Web) may be adjadgod and decreed to deliver over to the pinimtilfs. apon oath all notes letters, writings, cortespondenen mud papers which were delivered to him by the onid Nathaniet P Willis, ns hereinbefore meationed and all copies there of, of of any of them. aud ail extracts therefrom, of from any of them, which may beve boem made by the raid James Watson Webb. cr by avy other person or pe since the time when the do letters, writings, cor. Feeponucnce aDd papers were a: wd by raid Natha nicl PB. Willis to enid James Wateon Webb And that the said James Watson Webb may be per petunily restrained and enjoined from making. ot per mitting to be made, any copy oF extrnot of oF from sald notes, letters, oorreepondence and papers, of aay or either of them, end from publishing exporing. inapeet ing, reading. ing, interfering with, or coutrolling and from permitting or suffering any other person oF | persons to publish, expose, imepeet. rend, wan, control, oF aod nterfors with the said notes, letters, corr and integrity, as shall be appointed by this court, all the notes, letters, correspondence, and papers men- | tioned in the complaint in this action, and which were de- livered to the said defendant by Nathaniel P. Willisinthe presence of George Buckham, in or about tho month of | June, 1845. and all copies thereof, and extracts therefrom, | made since the delivery of said notes, letters. corres. pondence, and papers, by the said Nathaniel P. Willis to the raid James Watson Webb, to bo held by the said An- drew Warner, or such other persom as ball be #0 ap- pointed as recciver, with such directions as to this court shall seem proper; or why such further or other order should rot be made in the premiaes as to this court shall seem just. LEWIS H. SAND¥ORD. Dated New York, Juve 2, 1851. Smith Coddington and Mary I, his wife, vs. James Watson Webs. —On reading the complaint in this action, and the affidavits of George Buckham, Jane Inman, and Holbert Smales, and an undertaking daly approved by me, and on motion of Horace F. Clark, of counsel for the plaintiffs, I do ordee and direct that the defendant, James Watson Webb, do absolutely desist and refrain from making. or permitting to be made, any copy or extract of, or from, the notes, letters, correspondence, and any other papers mentioned in the complaint in this action, and which were delivered to him by Na thaniel P. Willis, in the pretence of George Buckham, in or about the month of June, one thousand eight hundred and forty-five; and from parting with, dis poring of, publishing, exposing, imapecting, of using, and (except so far as shall be necessary for their safe keeping.) from interfering with, or controlling, the said notes, letters, correspondence and papers, or any of them; and also from permitting or suffering any other person or persons to publish. expose, inspect, use, com trol, or interfere with the said letters, correspondence ‘end papers, or any of them, or any copies or extracts of or from them, or any of them. LEWIS H. SANDFORD. Dated New York, June 2, 1861. AFFIDAVIT OF GEORGE RUCKHAM, ESQ. 1 | | Smith Coddington and Mary I., his wife, against James Watson Webb.—City and County’ of New York, ss.—George Buckham, of said city, being duly sworn, doth tapes aud say, that in or about the year one thousand eight hundred and forty-five, the defendant, James Watson Webb, and depo- nent, were requested by weg Inman, as his ovn- fidential friends, to a to Nathaniel P. Willis for, and obtain from him, to be delivered to said Heary Inman, certain notes or letters which the laintif, Mary I., the daughter of said Henry Jaman, had written to said Nathaniel P. Willis some time before her marriage, and which tho said Henry Loman was desirous should be delivered up tohim. That in pursuance of sach request, a note was written (and, as deponent believes, by depo nent,) to said hag on he er pe hii to meet the said James Watson Webb. und deponent at deponent’s office, but without the object of euch meeting being therein stated, or in any way referred to. That meeting of said James Watson Webb, Nashaniel P. Willis, and deponent, accordingly took place at the time and place appointed, when the said Na- thaniel P. Willis wae informed that the seid Henry Inman, being aware that a written correspondence had sometime previously been carried om between his daughter, che plaintiff, Mary I., aad the said Nathaniel P. Wiihs, was desirous that all notes or letters which had ‘been received by said Natha- niel P. Willis from the plaintiff, Mary 1., should ig him, the said Henry lnmom; and that jenry Inman had suthecined them, the said James Watsoa Webdb and deponent, as his friends, to obtain them from said Willis for that pur- pore That the said Nathaniel P. Willis then freely stated that he believed he had somo notes or letters in bs possession, and that he was perfectly willing | to give them up na requested. And it was then mutually agreed between the said James Watson Webb, Natnanies P. Willis, and doponent, that they should agaim meet on the following day at the samse place, said Willis undertaking to tools up said notes or letters imthe meantime, aud.to bring them with him, and deliver them over. That, accordingly, on the next day, the said | James Wat Webb, Natbaniel 1’. Willis, and de- | ponent, again wet at deponent’s office, pursuant to the arrangement, and the said Wills then pro- | duced a package in a paper covor, which, he in- formed the suid Webb and depouens, contained all the notes or letters in his possession which he had received from the said pluint ary L, and | inquired to which of the parties present pre | said James Watson Webb and deponent) he should deliver said package. That said Webb replied, * You may give them to m leponent be- | lieving it te be wholly imimate which of them said package should be deliv: nted thereco. That the said Willis thereupon seal package, aud Landed it to the said W Btn deli ve to the said Leary Inman. That the eaid Webb received the said package, and took it away with Lim, aud deponent has uever seon it | since | And deponent says, that the proceedings at both of said mee were throughout of a courteous nature—that nothing like a threat or | menace was held out to said Willis, | charge 01 siutement mad is having seduce the plaintit, Mary 1. 0 aid Henry [n man bed any idee or sepioion thoreof, or that aay improper interoonrss bod t place bet even said Wilks ani the plaintiff, Mary 1. And deponent nye, that for several years prior to said interview, aud from that time down w the day of the death of the said Heury Laman, on the reventeenth day of January, oue thousand eight bundred and forty-rix, this deponeut was on terms of the closest friendshi with » and intimacy hie, and, n¢ depouent firmly believes, had bis an- d confidence; that, during the to, depane lted by bim business affwirs, a+ on his pr vate and fa rhule of | such period, except at Jnman wast the eity of New habit Of private and ont bim, and that euch and during the Inrt sal conversation with continued down to of the said Henry Inman And deponent say’, that both before and after said interviews, be had many conversations with the said Henry lnm a which bis family affairs were most freely die ; but that the said Ieery Iaman never, upon any occasion, vither directly or ied ly, stated, or gave deynent couse o e, thot he had any knowledge, or thought, or suspi- | clon that his ewid daughter was otherwise than pure and Virtuove, or that the said notes or letters written hy her contained any evidence or anything tending té evinee her seduction or want of chastity And deponent farther says, that from his clore and confidential intimacy with the said Henry Inman, de- ovent feels firmly aesured that if the said Henry toma bad known, 0 though! suid daughter had been a said Henr Inman would most certainly bave disclosed poet knowledge, thought, or suspicion, to deponent. And dey onent be #tbativihe health or spirits of the exid Henry Inman had at any time been seri ously afleeted by any euch knowledge, thought, or vent could not have Kiied w enup reion ecome wcqupinte Aud this deponent verily believee that, to the time of hie death, the said Henry Joman had the fullest confidence in the vir. tue abd integrity of his raid dawghter, and had never known or entertained any chought or sus on ef her having been seduced by, of havin bea m proper intercow th, the said Nathanie Pr Wi + any oth " Aid ceponcet enye, t the said Henry Ia mou never, directly of indirectly, expressed v¢ intimated to deponent any thought or suspi- cion that the Correspondence ll his said daughter and the said jiel P. Willis ecntsined any disclosure, admission, or evidence ot ber seduction, or of apy unchaste inter course between her and the said Nathaniel P. bla bo Pg cenmured, the Ln wins fe aving enga; in correspondence, also censured his daughter for having been a Party thereto; but, so far as regarded his said daughter, he never, to deponent’s wledge or belief, re- gerded it otherwise than as an act of indiscretion. And deponent s that he never heard it alleged that the said plai Mary I., been seduced by said Nathaniel P. Willis, until after the pub- lication of the article in the New York Courier and En purer, of the fifteenth day of May, instant, en- titled “The London Times, the Day Book, and the Heme Journal,” to which article the attention of this deponent was called early on the morning of the day of publication thereof, and throughout the day, and for several succeeding days, as reterring to the said Mary I. And deponent says, that some time after the eurrender of said notes or letters by said Willis, the said Henry Inman was desirous that the same Cig Bs toseee to him and ae in his possession, and for that juested deponent toveall on the said James Watson Webb. and ob- tain the said package and hand the same to him; and that depooent nocordingly, at the request of said Henry Inman, call en the said James Wat- son Webb, and inform him of the desire of said Henry Inman, and requeet him to deliver said notes or letters to deponent, to be by him banded to said Henry Inman. That in reply to such request, the said Webb stated to deponent that be would look them up and deliver or send them to the eaid Henry Inman, but, as deponent believes, he never did de- liver or send them to the said Henry Inman. And this deponent says, that after the death of the said Henry Inman, his widow, Jane Inman, the mo- ther of the plaintiff, Mary I., being desirous of obtain- ing the possession of said notes or letters, requested deponent again to call on the said James Watson Webb, and obtain the same and hand them to her. That doponent again called on said James Watson Webb, and informed him tha; the said Jane Inman desired to have the said notes or letters in her pos- session, and requested him to deliver them to depo- Nent, for the purpose of their being handed to the said Jane lomanu, and in reply to such request, the raid James Watson Webb stated that he would look them up and deliver or send them over, as ro quested ; but, as deponent believes, he never com- plied with his promise. And this deponent says, that the said notea and letters were delivered by the said Natha- niel P. Willis to the said James Watson Webb on the express trust to deliver the same to the said Henry Inman, and for no other pur- pose, to deponent’s knowledge and belief; and that deponent has never read or become acquainted with the contents of the same, or any or either of them, nor should this deponent have considered himself at liberty to have opened the package and made himrelf acquainted with the contents of said notes or letters, had the said package been deliver edtohim. And further this deponent saith not. Gro. Bucknam. Sworn this 3let day of May, 1851, before me, Geo. P. Netson, Com. of Deeds. Par pribinahe OF MRS. ag af tigom Y loddington and Mary I. ins wife against James Watson Webb.—City and County of New York, ss.--Jane Inman, of Hempstead, Queens county, in the State of New York, being duly sworn, says, that she is the widow of Henry Inman, late of | wg! of New York, deceased; and that the plaintiff, Mary 1., is the daughter of depo- nent and of said Henry Inman; and this deponent hat the discovery by her and the ssid Henry Inman that her daughter, the said plaintiff, Mary I, had, unknown to them, been engaged in a corres- pondence with Nathaniel P. Willis, did not, nor did any other facts or circumstances, excite in their minds any belief or suspicion that the plaintiff, Ma 1., had been seduced by said Willis, or that any cri- minal intercourse 4 ever taken place or been con- templated by the ff, Mary L., and the said Nathaniel B?Wil the said Honr 5 enry Inman and deponent considered such correspondence an act of thoughtlessness and indiscretion which, although highly censurable, was attributable to the extreme youth and inexperience of the plaintiff, Mary I. And deponent says, that from she time of such dis- covery down to the death of the said Henry In- man, she had the mest free, full, and unreserved conversation with him arding such correspon- dence, undthe conduet and character of their daugh- ter, the plaintiff, Mary I., and was fully acquaint- ed with his views and opinions respecting the samo; and she is thereby enabled to state, tively and without reserve, that the said Henry Inman never, at any time, entertainedany doubt or suspicion of the purity of their said daughter, Mary I. And this deponent further says, that the allegation of the death of the said Henry Inman having been caused or hastened by a kuowledge or belief of the seduction of the plaintiff, Mary |, is entirely un- true. And depouent says, that she never believed or rtaiued the thought or suspicion that the said plaintiff, Mary I., had been seduced or was other- wise than chaste and virtuous, and that she now fully and firmly believes her suid daughter to be, and to have always been, chaste and virtuous. And deponent says, that neither she nor the said Heary Inman were ever desirous of obtaining the notes or letters which had been written by the plaintiff, tothe said Nathaniel P. Wilks, from any belief, fear, or suspicion that the same contained a) , adunission or evidences of the seduo- tien of the plaintiff, Mary 1., or could in any way impair or affect her co ation for chastity or virtue; but that both the said Henry lamas and deponent were desirous of obtaining possession of said notes and letters, from a feeling of the impro- priety of permitting notes or lettors, written by a young and inexperienced girl, without the kaow- ledge of her parents, to remain in the haads of the suid Nathaniel P. ‘Willis, or of.any person. ‘That it was for that reason, aud not with any be- or fear, or suspicion, that the said note id or might contain any proof or adimissio i the virtue or chastity of tho plaintiff, Mar, 1, that the said Henry Loman, in bis lifetime, ani deponent, after his decease, requested ieorge Buck- kam, who had, for se yours, boen a very inti- mate and confidential friend of said Heary Inman aud deponent, to call on the defeadant, James Wat- son Webb, and obtain and. deliver to chem, re- spectively, the notes or letters of the said pledatitf, Mary I., which bad been handed by the said thamel P. Willis to the said Ju atson Webb, to be delivered up to the said Henry Inman. And further this deponent saith not. J Sworn this 30th day of May, 1351, bet Gro. P. Netsox, Commissioner of Deeds APYIDAVIT OF HOLBERT SMALUS, ESQ. Smith Coddington and Mary 1, his wife, aginst James Waten Webb —City and Cowity of New York, #s.—Holbert Smales, 0 city, being du! sworn, says, that at the r ad by f th t, on the t ty » Webb, at offive, ity of New York, nthe names and on behalf of the plaintiffs de- the notes or letters mentioned in the eum- a this action; but the said James Watson ebb did not deliver the same, or any of shom, to deponent thea or at any time . | And deponent says, that, in answer to such de mand, the said James Watson Webb stated he would deliver said notes letters to the plaintiif, | Smith Coddington, or to the plaintiff, Mur dington, at the proper tin is Sworn before uw this wth day of May, Wat. H. Sranns, Couumis. of Deeds SCHEDULE A Tue Loxnow ‘Times, tun Day Boox, ano tur | Home Jovrsas.— The’ personal abuse wlica may | be heaped upon the editor of this or other Awe- | ican journal, by the Cimes mewepaper in Londor ot very litle 1 ae ft i hands of reekless aud unprincipled ng press oonducted by “4 coward, & seducer, & swindier, and # senteneed felon, who escaped the las nud the charge sustained by ex- tended extracts from the New \ork May Book, aud and its lew much toaseail the editor of this toexhib« an; the character of the Aimerioad’ tre nad ive cou: | introduction, nd left the room. Subsoqveutty we juctors. spoke in the street in passing; and once, and once To the London Morning Post and its corres) only, did we ever pause to exchange a soli ob- dent, we feel especially bted for its Feito. re) pn He quarrelled with our assistant, Mr. us individually ; and still more a for its defence of | Raymond; and, as it was our duty to do, we gave the American press generally, ite é of the | Mr. Raymond the use of our columns to defend character of the Day Book and its codaborers in himeclf, simply requiring that he should do so over infamy. Alluding to the personal assault based | his own signature. This he did effectually; and by upon the Dey ‘Book and Home Journal, the Morn- | way of showing Willis’s excuse for disliking us, we ing Post saye:— republish on our outside, Mr. Raymond’s last letter ‘*Our readers will be surprised, on perusing the to! Willis, for which, as we afterwards learned, Willis article in question, that any newspaper in theworld | threatened to horsewhip us, but finally thought should have been so lost to all sense of propriety a8 | better of it. fely leave In 184-, to originate such a thing; and we ma; in , a very dear friend of ours—one who was them to the commests which own feel- | beloved b; who knew him, and who still mourn ings will dictate—but which we forbear even tosug- | his untimely end, without dreaming that Willis gest—as to the conduot of our cotemporary in re- | caused his Meike teresa that ins only daugh- publishing an article so infamous, and giving to a shameless personal libel the currency of ite extend- ed circulation, and the prestige ofits name, without tor, the idol of his soul, and upon whom all a ta- ther’s love and means had been lavished, had fallen a victim to Willia’s arts. Her ruin was complete; check or qualification, but her heart-broken father still clung to the hope ** Thia would be bad Neste had thojournal and ottiatng from the world her shame. He made but the editor who were defamed been utterly unknown | one co. it of his daughter’s fall, besides ourself; to our contemporary, and the article been cited (as and we proceeded to com; Wi to di it professed to be,) merely to show what one trans- bre pel Willis to surrender certain letters in his possession, which admitted her atlantic editor could say of another; but when it | fall, and which he shamefully rved from the transpires that the journal attacked has been for | basest motives. He was gly requested to years the declared, but open and manly antago- | be at the office of the gentleman referred to, at nist of the Times, the re-publication looks some- | certain hour. We met him there. What followed thing less like the effort of a mere amateur in litera- | need not be told, exeegh that he was allowed twonty- ry curiosities; and the climax is reached when it is four hours to make surrender of the letters of declared that’ the “editor” of this journal, who is, vat ‘tis his victim. At the expiration of that time we mot in this article, held up to the detestution of man- | him again, received from him the let! whioh kind, 93 8 monster whose yory existence is a stain | even the most unprinoipled libertine, ‘one upon humanity, isa gentleman of education and | particle of human feeling, would have destroyed ae high social position—a frequent visiter to this or: roonaé read; and from that day to this, never suf- try, and familiarly known to many persons in tho | fered him to speak to us, even in the street. Our | success in thus hiding from the world the shame of his dear child, gladdoned the heart of our friend; | but his was not the mature to survive such a blow In less than three months we followed him to the tomb; and in the sight of that God before whom y him appointed Minister of the United States to | the seducer of his child must also one day appour, the court of Vienna; an appointment which is ih N. P. Willis is as much his murderer as he wor itself so far a guarantee of a man’s character and | have been if he had plunged a dagger to his hoart ition, so as to makeit appearincredible that any | That be hates us with the concentrated hatred of a journal, having the least care for its own reputation, | fiend for having been the instrument of compzllin, would make upou him. in his absence, so gross | him to do at least purtial justice to his victim, ne] wanton an attuck as was involved in the deliberate | that he equally hates the friend in whose presence and unreproved re-publication of the foul-mouthed he was humbled, we never for a moment doubted. ii] , of which we are reluctantly compelled to But he bottled up his hatred for years in succession; pe rE nd for which the letter already named has | and finally, when we had lefttho country, he poured solicited our careful and especial conaideration.” | forth, as we are told, the vials of his wrath upon The editor then proceeds in a manly and inde- | in language which even the editors of the Day pendent tone, for which we are quite sure every | could not excel, and contented themselves with American will thank him, to poingf out the shame- | borrowing. ‘ ful manner in which the Times has traduced this | The London Morning Post will judgo from this from — brief narrative of our acquaintance with Willis, and ing to the cause of his abuse of us, precisely tho value of foremost ranks of —— society; and, finally, known to the world at as the intimate frion: of the late President Taylor, (who, in fact, owed hiselection to the Executive chair in no small de- ee to General Webb’s efforts and influence)—and country for years past, by constantly quoti the least reputable prints in it, and prete: judge the United States by such standards. He that abuse. We have never, by an accident, met says:— : him in the house of a gentleman in this city but ‘*But, in fact, the articles which the Times has once. He writes about society; but he writes from published bave been extracted from journals not what he gathers in the lobbies of the Opera House only devoid of ali character, but well known to our and theatres, and at concerts, and, possibly, in contemporary as being 80; and worse still, as not families on outskirts of soole y, who are led to American in any reapeot, but the locality of publi- believe that he access to good houses, and owned and conducted by knows something of what he writes. But this is an cation—being, in 5 Europeans, Sany of whom have little in common error. He is not admitted into society; and we with the interests or respectability of the country of know the faot, that ladies who occasionally impru- their adoption.” | dently tolerate him at the opera or theatre, have * * rd bi | made such tolerance dependent upon the fact that “Tt is unquestionably true, that the Englishesti- | he shall never join them in Broadway. Had Mrs. mate of the character andability of American news- _ Forrest unders' his actual position, it is probable papers has been influenced and modified by, if not | that she would not now be suffering from his ac- the extracts made from them quaintance; and had some kind friend told Jenny actually formed upon, by the English journals; and it is equally true, |, on her arrival in this oo ,» who Willis tat no paper makes those ‘extracts’ as freely as | was and is, the of the United States would the Times.” not have had it pri ed through the Home Jowr- * ° * * nal tbat he had paraded our streets in her company. The fact that he persuaded Miss Lind thus to set terly opposed to every English instinct of fair play, | at defiance ic opinion, and merely for the pur- that even the consummate assurance of our con- | pose of publishing it, will open the eyes of one so temporary cannot carry it off, if once fairly placed | experienced as the editor of the London Mourning before the public, and clearly ex; 5 Post, to the true character of the man, and render **Had the New York Courier or Jowrnal of Com- | further comment by us out of place. merce habitually lajd before its readers extracts SCHEDULE B. from the Age or the Satirist, and solemnly avouched (From the New York Herald of Saturday.) them as examples of English newspaper literature, WILLIS VS. WED! and expressions of English sentiments, declaring | To ¢he Public, (in Correction of 4 Statement made those journals themselves to be ‘ the lew organs by Col. Webb.) of publio opinion’ in Great Britain, it would be but | Some five or six Jears ago, when I was editing o the precise counterpart of what the Times has done. | daily paper in this city, 1 received several lowers wilfully and determinately, for the last fifteen years, from a young school-girl, who is now a most res- in the face of all that could be urged against such pectable married Indy, residing, with her husband gross and wanton misrepresentation. and children, ina neighboring State. She was a i vd - child of a great deal of irre; genius and ecoen- tricity of conduct; but, withal, never seemed to me to have either the idea or che coassiousness of any impropriety. She would go where she liked, cail onany gentleman whom she cared to see, and * “Conduct like this is so disingenuous, and so ut- * “ Public opinion, in the United States, is influ- enced by, and im; its tone to, suvh journals aa the Courier and Ernyuirer, the Advertiser, and the Journal of Commerce, of New Y ork; the Intelligencer, of Washin 3; the Gazette, of Vhiladelphia; and once, it is well known, when offended at the Journa?, of Boston, with many others of proxi- | went and offered herself a4 & servant girl to mate status, whom we forbear to name; and by | mily in the city. Being very besutiful, sho was very every arrival from America, copies of mauy of these much admired: but I have often said of r, and papers reach every member of the metropolitan row, that | never knew so wild, brill: press. Yet the Times prefers to ignore the very ¢x- parently lawless a creature, who in: i istence of these journals; and lays before its readers versal a confidence in her virtue til Colonel the ribaldry and mis-statements of a vee. excom- | Webb's caluminous publication of Thursday, te municated from iety, as if it were the truthful | which this is « reply, ] never heard it doubted. narrative of passing events on the other side of the | ” ‘This young girl bud u pascion for liverary: fame, Auantic, a fair expression of public fooling aod and, if opinion, and an average specimen of American her marriage. [er letters to me were the irregula- newspaper talent and newspaper morality. | cutpourings of a heart and mind overflowing and The London Morning Past and its correspond- | impatient of silence; but, however disconnected and ents, having thus defended the absent and vindi- | rhapsodical, they seemed to me more full than wa cated the press of the United States, weowe@it to at all common of the anconcentrated mise that press to explain why we should have been thus genius. What sentiment in the a was assailed by the editors of the Home Jowrnal and the » myself, I never twice thought of—for it Day Bok—N. P. Willis and Stimson—par nobile | is'uddressed often to those who are the supposed frarvum. :: | gate-keepers to celebrity snd Appreciation, A The name of the Day Book never appeared in our | editor's drawer is full of such propitiatory compli columns but once, uotil this day; and thea for the ments, and he is indeed silly it he coasider them as simple purpose of enabling us tosay, inthe nameof anything but ‘be toll to the pathway of fame. Me. Webster, and some balfdozen of our most pro- On her return from Europe, some time after, I minent statesmen, and in the name and bebalf of beard that this lady was about to be married, and & many of our leading merchants, that a card, got goutieman wrote to me for au interview, and courte- up and widely circulated, ting to be auen- vusly applied fur her letters. | had Laid them aside, dorsement ot the principles of the Hay Book, and thinking them interesting, as the first irregular utter- wrging subscription to it, was a gross and delibe ances of what | thought would prove w be rate forgery. The article copied by the Times, but promptly returned them, with no idea that was in reply to an exposure of its fraud; and, of there wae anything either threatening or unusual course, never was notived by us. So utterly ob- in the request. Col. Webb was present when thoy e is the _ in which it appeared, that, al- were delivered, but expressed no dissatisfaction gh it has been published for some yearsin this with me or with them. |, son ufter, mot hor city, we have never by any accident met with ® | father, wh», | understood, had supposed mo to be dozen copies of it during the whole period of itv ex- an encourager of the eoventrivities of his daughter, iatenee, | and bad feltunkindly to me; but witha few words Mr. N. P. Willis and the Home Journal, tho ne- | of explanation, we shook hands aud parted, aad of tual author and origivator of most of the Vay | that matter | never thought wore Book's slanders, are ‘better known; and because | Of the “complete ruin” of this lady, (now living they are well known, we feel called upon to explain | most respectably with her husband and oaildren in remember rightly, wrote ® novel befor the —_ of what is reputed to bave been ove of a neighboring State.) Col Webb accuses me, in the foulest and most cowardly assaults upon private language to gross to copy. He begins by character ever wade by a newspaper in thiscountry. that be was Eimaselt dear friend of ber father ‘That characteristic aseault was, as our readors well know, made after we had left the country, forwarded by its author to our © She bas been a: Wx Year 8 is the first time the Las ever been accused of guilt, privately or publicly, to my knowledge—and Col. Webb now fer civeulation in that But accuses me of ber ruin, calling her father “very id, of course, i dear friend,” whose “untimely end he mourns” » base a purpose, nor would he even peraut us. This accuration is unqualitiedly mutruc; but even if id the attack, which be simply characteritod sv cruel and wilful a talsebood were true, what hu- as infamous and base. Since our return, it has man beart would be thought capuble of so agouis ng been repeated: losed to us, together with full the living dougtter of a dead friend, as to re- parade partieulars of Wil connection with the Forrest it to the tten? It was be 4 orld after it was forgot divorce case, his being horsewhipped by Forrest, | cause he revergefully thought that a fresh clander and # full account of his doings in turope, bis bor- of this kind would be the ‘drop too much” ia my rowirg money from ladion in the absence of their cup of euch trouble et this ti and—(f the pab busbande, and all his Jeremy Didier propensities | lic mind prefer to take sides against innucenoe, with while abroud. But we bad promived nevei to read out proul or rensen)—porhaps it will the attack, and to this day have not read any part N. P. Witnis. ofit; nor aid we ini ever to have alluded te it j ae — Ww " or ite author; and we shall now content ourself | Stents Gane ee with simply showing why he has assailed us, in | 4,5 {¥rim the Gourke and Foquirer. May 10) | order that the editor of the London Mormng Bost |. 09 1eply tw the Sal ‘aieha steele | may know the character of our assailant. lo tals ps a heconaph- th gomyie eng all uy I > | community we are both known, aod, therefore, uo | Miryboeure ot Che coe shy oie selene against assault from thal quarter is neces 4 oo je a gery sary. nor would it be exeusuble it es a de eibte tun Some twenty years ago; we readin the New York | (a4, ¢ ia canals setae becca, loses Minor that 'N. P. Willis bed gone abroad, aad i> watibend Warten cee would be the foreign sorreepoudent of that paper. | hi own signuluie aad pabicted in the fle ae Th is well known. Willis beemme aa in | i) Sie eee inal bef te eed im the Hime J var uy ly Dlessington’s coterie—the moet im | ce. 4 even of . ate to on ' Y, Without the a moral in Loudon, but which was composed of the | Web ag priived oc the some sie eee Bot mati highes: intellecta of the It ts seareely neces | ed at the conclusion that we couli do ? so without the slightest rink of the pubdiic og morabers | able to conjecture who was the party implicaved y to add that the fe io ptability, and never a . Te wgnee aoe cians of A We mete prepared, of course, for surmises and rae while no gentleman lost sucial cast by froque re aie aan yet A bas wo Lady Blexsington’s brilliant cirelo. Throw cnt Scly ame person besten WW ilile medium, Willis obtained aceess to mauy of the dest aa a Nak cipen ng yore Bh i bouses in England, where he was treated with the LY then previsely freedom, confidence, and hospitality which an Eng- facts with \ ih poet 4 rs) poppet yl lichman co well knows bow to extend to those who 7 h \villis, are limble to ewspi if, #6 We ure informed, the names of hulf That } f bie fervale irienda are banded ubout as are once adimitted into his howe. W illia’s Hume Journal, it becomes « duty to reter to | tality he repaid by selling to the New York Murer, the subj uot by way of defence at home, but to | for the f . family secrot4, | are not renal ; iy Aes peaiy ok rate puso’, sustain those who, from a mere feeling of wagua- | and revealing their every-day confidential conv Whethor Willis, im the k repoing poe | pee vimity aud self-respect, have deemed it right to defend the absent, and rebuke the slanderer. The London J1mes is the great advocate of “free now, and will continue to be just so long as that contio the popular side of the question; but it is notorious to the reading world of both Ku. rope and America, that since the passage of the Reform bill, more than twenty years ago, the Times is the verieet weathercock inexisieuce. It changes with public opinion from day to day, and year to yeur; and unblushingly avows ite veniaslity in this regard. In one respect only has it ever ex- hibited any consistency; and that ia, in hatred of everything American, and its unceasing labors to defame and slander our people and our institations, and to injore them in t stimation of Europe. This shameful propensity, indulged in with the most reckles# disregard of truth and common decency, we bavefrom time to time exposed, aa our readers well know; and in consequen and because wo have pointed out the injur, ing from free trade, the iy | a never failed to embrace every opportunity which presented, of re- publishing the scurrility Zod abuse which hae be eo frequently heaped apon us by the filth D columns in this personal and aby than thore which ; and #0 utterly reo nd scurrilous, that some Atmericans don, and the London press, cried out sh rebuked it in a manner which compelled the editor on the 26th ult., to offer the only apology which he cvuld jnveat, 1 parpere Wee pot a9 lation to individuals! These pul cations went back to England, and one or two dacls were about to take place in consequence of this vile betrayal of hoepitality. 4 was excluded from simply to mislead the public in regard to tho part, implicated, by pretending to misunderrtand as, ef fectuslly to sercen the injured, is more than we can determine, In charity we are willing to consider gentlemen's homes and tables, and the press unitod opel dacantioe an ane meiting his conduct asa specimen of American oe mtg 4 ~ 4 "t ri athe a po Loong! gr oom breeding, aud the necessity of excluding in future ’ tofyhich we have, ever been m perte et with oon all Americans from English homes—the sanctity a oI end privacy of which they would violate and expe | pctalls of which wo # re utter! bemtatingl? erly ignorant. Weus declare that we know nothing of sash for » price | v a case as Willis deseribes ; and if j hor th We protested against this condemnation of 8 | getion, we advise bim in hucere so abstain tate ee. whole nation in consequence of the conduc: vealing any of his affairs with “ young gicls” who mere adventurer, whe did not even olaim to know young 8 have bappened to exbibit * uneon ot genius,” but who bave sottled spectable married ladies.” They will not thaok hi for being pointed at in connection wi and in this relati on, bis card is every gentlemanly impulse, Even if his public- tion were true, and had a bearing upon what we al- lege, it would be unpardonable in him to make it, torereen himself from public indignation. And if his life has been such that the public have scores of Rates Upon whom to fix suspicion, it ie no affair of ours. We repeat, that but one persan lives, be- sides Willis and ourself, who can possibly know to whom we have alluded; and most assuredly, we #ball do nothing to point suspicion to its victim We now reiterate every word of our charge; aad Were we writing for the readers of the Cowrier and Enquirer only, we should be cuntent to leave the Matter upon the issue of our respective charactor: ior (uth. Bye this may not be, ander existing cir- centrated promise what belonged to the proprieties of social inter- down into ‘re. course—who was utterly ignorant of the rules of society on both sides of t Atlantic—and whose habits, instincts, and connections, were alike at war with the feelings and breeding of a gentleman. The Americen ong generally, soarcely an exception, took the seme ground, and vindicated, as was their duty, the character of our countrymen | upon it by Willis. After his re- States, we a winter with him at the Actor Howse; but peremptorily refused to be introduced to him or to recognive him as a gentleman, in consequence of his proverbially bad ernduet everywhere throughout Furope. [t hap- pened, however, that in the summer Idi or 12, at Saratoga, Willis arrived at the | nited States about mid-day, and came inte the drawing-room, when we were the only gentlemen in the room. Te was a stranger to all the ladies present; and, coming di- Tootly to us, We reovgnised Lim as aa acquaintaace,