The New York Herald Newspaper, January 4, 1852, Page 1

WHOLE NO. 17009. ‘THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE. Superior Court. Before Uhief Justice Oakley. CATHARINE NW. FORREST VS. EDWIN FORREST. Wednesday's Prov celings Continued from Thursday's lerald. “sir. Van Buren then proceeded to read the following vaffidavit of Mrs. Forrest :: Casharine Forrest against Edwin Forrest—City and Coun- oo Kork. ss —Catharine N. Forrest, the plaintiff in this action, being duly sworn, deposes as follows, that is 88: , I bave not, in this action, charged Mr. Forrest with ity, and was advised that it would be irrelevant to the present case to make such charge or refer to such offenee by bim. But, as he. or bis counsel think other- wire, it may be proper for me to state the facts. The au- schedule, marked “Copy, Charge and Ani sontains the charge on that subject, made by me other action, (omitting the numbers of houses and nemes of female participazors ) and also contains Mr. Forrest's agywer in that action. Iam advised and believe that s4ch answer is » virtual admigsion of the infidelity *. charged, He denies the fact, at thesparticular times or laces Gharged, but has not ventured to deny the lact itself. I may have been misinformed as to those pexticulars. but the principal fact remains undenied by bim. My affidavit made in this action om the second day of September last (1850), was prepared by one of my counsel, under my instructions, I was present at his office during nearly all the time he was writing it, and [ prepared three copies of it with my owa hands, at my ?@idence, before deposing to it. I was under vo earthi: Influence in the preparing or the signing of said affida- vit, save my own judgment and reason; though, of course, from time to time, received the advice of coun- sel, and I now re affirm the truth of said affidavit, in all respects, I deferred this action against Mr Forrest to ¢ latest practicable moment. and thereby afforded him e and opportunity to recede from his pursuit of ex- reme measures agaia+t me. Both in my protest to the Legislature of Penney!vania and my said former affida ‘vit, I studiously avoided reference to irrelevant topics and censures upin third persons; I also abstatned from any imputation against Mr. Forrest, except to the ex- tant which was absolutely necessary to the miintenance of my action, and seemed necessary to the vindication of my own innocence. I annex & copy or my said protest, and confidently refer to the same, and to my former affi- davit. to show that I have hitherto abstained from stat- ing any fact. not abjolutely necessary to the case, which bel discreditable to Mr. Forrest, or to any one else. ‘The protest is dated March the fourth. 1850, and con- ~ tains not a word aguinst him, excepy what may be im- plied from the circumstances adduced to show my in- ocence. My affidavit, which is dated September 24, 1850, indeed, aserts, that he knew his suit to be unjust, 4. in connection therewith, shows that he practised an fice (which he has not ventured to deny) in order to entrap me into an implied admission of guilt. In im- pugning the motive of his proceedings against me, and - denying his belie? in the imputation oferime, I concsived “hyself to be tuliy justited, as well by the necessity of the ~ case as by truth; for if he believed mato be guilty, such lief, coming from one who Knows my character 89 well would afford some presumption ageinst me. It, there- Sore, seemed to me proper to deny that Mr. Forrest be- Neved me to beguiity, as I had satisfastory evidence that he did noz do ao; I was emboldened, too, by conscious innocence, by faith in divine protection, and reliance ‘apon the justice of my country, and have not yet felt zhe desire or expectation of an scquittal from the charges of impurity brought against me, unless I shall be able to mvince the court avd jury, as perfectly, that those arges are preferred in ill faith as that they are ua- vounded in iact My defence must, in fature, take a ‘Srmer tone Mr. Van Buren—The part I am asked by counsel on ‘the otherside to omit. is the next sentence, down to @ “upon me or mine,’ but which I will notomit. Mr. ‘an Buren then ccntinued to read— \ When I perused Mr. Forrest's afidavit, evidently framed by himeeif tor publication, imputing to me every grossness and crim‘naiity that fancy could suggest, and volving my aged father, my sisters, all that are near d dear tome. I became convinced that farther for- ‘Searance was not my duty, and that thenceforward, as far as truth woulé warrant, honor aad duty required me to repel al! Mr Forrest's imputations, to present his Src guioet me in their true colors. and to deny Bis self praise, whenever it was unfounded in fact and ceflected, even tadirectly, upon me or mine. True is, I'am o woman and a wife, and it may ‘ce thought that I defend too firmiy. True it is, that Mr. Forrest is yet my husband, and submission to Sim may be thought obligatory upon me; bat none can deny that in him. I must also now recognise a bitter and relentless enemy; one who took me from my father’s arth, promising to cherish and protect me, and now, »fter wearing out in his service all the bright years of ‘ny youth, reeke to cast me forth, covered with infamy, nd'to insure my utter destruction is persecutiag all, ven of my nestest kindred, who venture to afford me the slightest countenance. ) Mr, Van Burenx—‘Then comes the part I have read be- “tore. - "Chief Justice—It {s proper it should be all read in connection. , _ Mr. Van Buren then continusd to read—In reference to what happened after his alleged discovery of my un- Sorthiners, be quoted me ns saying that be treated me * with compassionate kindness.” He also asserts that ae treated me * with the consideration and gentleness due toasvoman;”’ that he is of ag unsuspicious dispo- ways, in his relations with me, ;” that be has “fully com- plied with his obligations; been. until the separation, y constant and affectionate companion; uniformly at- ntive, tender, and indolgent; that we lived harmo- jourly, in @ spirit of kindness and confidence, natil oh discovery; and that his conduct has been generous A kindly y affidavit containa no such idea as that quoted, nor did lever say anything ofthe kind; and the est of Mr, Forrest's assertions above referred to are es- sentially untrue in all respects. They are most deeply 20, in reapect to every period since about the month of August,in the year one thousand eight hundred and > forty-six, more than two years before he foucd the Con- suclo letter. Ie speaks of a habit of writing “ from her + “lover and husband, Edwin Forrest.” Twice, aud twice sly, did he ever so write, to my knowledge. The ex- cravagant character and manner of Mr Forcest's changes against me, lead many to sappose that he is insane ; and fehers. perhaps, believe, that he is the victim of misrep- esentation, I think I know that he is not josane, and Thave good reascn to be confident that ha is not in the Yeast misled. Iam quite sure that he is himself the im- emediate originator nod instigator of all the charges ho ‘advances, and that the ogency of others is ia mere obs- » his will, ception of the issne between C, en from this; and I trast th® 3 igo geues, Of “Toss and evil impu- tions i Ais efidavit, will excuse we for tally entarn on its refutation. Ideeply lament that the practic fof the courtd Yerwits Mr. Forrest, by his aflilavit, to 'drawinto review, in {Hits oase, his controversy with Mr. ‘Macready, a ¢ our private intercourse in relation thereto, Mr. Yan Buren—I now read another senterce which cy Wished mato omit. He then continued:-—More ply still do LJament that in his rage against mo, he should be privileged to publish his rude invectives «Against my sister, for having allectionately stood by me, throughout my trials Mr. Forrest never four ‘anees of Mr Jamieson. or spon, or in any immode 1 me standing between the h his hands upon my per- position whatever, nor did he ever ask what avy euch transaction meaut, nor did [ on fasion. change my position or reply with . that Mr, Jamieson had been any such ¢ perturbation, or otherwi examining my phrecolc gical developements, T neither know nor believe, that Sir Jamieson, on the occasion veferred to by Mr. ithdrew, or t Siligently searched for, or that on any sush occasion, he was a party to any engagement to make a vidt, or had been invited or expected to accompany Mr. Forrest or myself to avy piace. I never wrote to M after Mr. Forrest found the Cou: letter. Mr. never said a wort to me at any time in his life, \ pbout the peouiar position. or any position, in which he ad found me. erin which I had been with Mr. Jamie: son, at Ciccinnati,or whereelse. Mr. Forrest never arked me if I bad written to Mr. Jamieson, nor did I ever caii God to withers, or say that T had not so weitten All that te raid by Mr. Forrest in his affidavit, and herein above denied, conceruing Mr. Jamteson’s acts or Mine, in reference to anid Jamieson, at Oinctanati, or here else is abaciutely untrue in every respect, r~There you stopped dafore. And now 1 will continue to read knowledge of any such facts iragination, was obtained from ded evidence before the Penn- stare, ewbequently to the first of Februa. Iurver knew, nor prior to the present any alleged “treachery or profli- that bis character for veracity cient in principles or honor in regard to wemen, or that he ever was guilty of any emisconduet with Mra, Hunt, or towards her husband, h nor do T admit iny belief of any of the im by Mr. Forrest. After ghe separa “apparent cordiality with Mr Jamto- invited him to our house; and very state of things, ashe himeelf stated to me, visited } Hunt in New Orleans. Andon the last day that we were in Cincinnati, Mr Forrest asked Mr. Mamieson to with us, which invitation was declined. ¥us off inthe cars. I have a recolles- aL think whilet we were in ent some publication in the papera relative to Mrs. Hunt and Mr. Jamioson; but precisely what it yastdo not recollect, Mr, Forrest at the time spoke very hig Mrs Mant. The allegation that I received visita or etten!ions from Mr, Jameson, after the Consue- letter, has (is much truth in it:--Mr, Forrest and my- celf returned iicinpat, where we remained for three ‘pys. at the » tel in whioh Mr. Jamieson also Moarded. Ho ted bitmrolf with ordinary courtesy to me when we mot during these three days. Mr, Ja- mieson promired, ‘a the presence of Mr. Forrest, ay Cia- when he next came to Now York, om haste and inadvertance, To Avzust he called upon me at nd street, detivered ime the mu- go ordianty mora- Jay, and [ received d coolness, I gio, and aj ing visit. 46 w him with what had once expr sure of the Consuelo Metter, aud I did sot intend im any form, favorably or unfavorably, to uotice it further, ¥ therofore cxanoe nny that L intended to exhibit any feeling in my manner on that oconsion Mr. Jamferon-never called npon me after our fins! leparture from Cincinnati, except this once, Further this, it is not true hat I ever received xy visite or cme half hour pay: a the attentions of said Jamieson, after the receipt of said Consuelo letter. lo 3 ‘The first conversation between Mr. Forrest and myself about the Consuelo letter, was later than January 20, 1849. The conversation between Mr. Forrest and myself about that letter was as stated in my said former affida- vit, and none of the additional matters, stated in Mr, Forrest’s affidavit, took place; he did not, in speaking of such letter, refer to the subject of virtue; he did not that said letter involved my character fatally, or, at all; he did not charge me with retaining it secretly, except by asking me why I did not show it to him; he did not say that a really virtuous woman would have spurned it, or torn it into pieces, or‘ flung them into her insult- er’s face,” or “never seen him afterwards;’’ I never ver- bally or “admitted an imprudence in receiv- ing ‘or concealing such letter.’’ did not then, or ever before December 24, 1849, pro- test that I was not guilty of crime; I never said that [ was afraid, in reference to such letter; IT neverexclaimed, “Oh. God, why did I not destroy it?” or said anything of the kind; nor did Mr. Forrest ever remark, “ that it was reserved by heaven as the instrument of my exposure” Mr, Van Buren—Here is a sentence which I am asked not 10 read, but whichI do read:—I declare that each and every of the jons of Mr Forrest, in his said affl- davit, touching his convereation or conversations with me ‘and herein above denied, is wholly, andin every respect, untrue. During the interval between Mr. Forrest's first an- nouncement of his intention to separate from me, and the actual separation, [ spoke with him about the event, and ite painful consequences to me. 1 said that but one oause eould justify him in it, that wasa departure from virtue by me. : I said that the public would assume ‘that cause to exist, and condemn me accordingly. Mr. F or- rest replied there was an eminent example to the con'rary; that a distinguished citizen, bigh in office,whom 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 purity op account of the separation, to call upon him, and he would defend and right me. The apparent kindness of this offer led to a somewhat free, but, on my part, a very sad conversation between us, as to my fature course of life Mr, Forrest said that, perhaps, nty vanity would lead me to go upon the stage. I answered that perhaps it might He rejoined. substantially, then [ was lost— tha’ 1 would descend, step by step, from bad to worse, and would, at length, become criminal. I replied that there was pothing in my past life to warrant his vaying 80, and, whatever evil might thereafter befall me, L wished to give hit, at that present time, whilat I yec had his full confidence, for his satisfaction in such evil hour— should it ever come—the strongest proof in my power, that, whilst living with him, I had never deviated from rectitude, Accordingly, I requested him to write for me the most solemn paper to that eifect, which he could devise, und offered to pledge myself to itetruth Mr, Foirest at once scouted at this idea, and declared that he never would have lived with me au instant, after entertuining the slightest suspicion of me ; but, on being prested, he wrote a paper, which I signed. I read that paper but once and then rather rapidly. I have no copy of it. nor any precise recollection of its contents, intended it to be as strongly worded as possible; yet my impression and best present recollection and belief are, that its language only refers to, aad denies levity, or mere venial breaches of decorum. and that it dovs not contain any denial of criminalconduc. Iam confirmed in this belief, by the fact that Mr. Forrest has made aliusions to this paper, with a view to my prejudice, twice since the commencenient of this action, anu has, on both occasions, withheld any copy thereof, or any precise statement of its contents, The siguing of that paper did not attract much attention from ma, being only connected, in my views, with « future evi] event, suggested by Mr Forrest, but deemed iuapoasible by me ; and I cannot remember recurring to it, even in thought, frem the time of signing it. until I saw @ reference to it in an answer of Mr. Forrest tomy action in October last (:8:0,) Mr. Forrest wrote said paper, and my mode of signing makes it ersy to write above my signature, From the statements in his afidavit, I suspect that he bas ante- cated it. I deny. absolutely, that Mr. Forrest ever proposed to me to take an oath attesting my inno- cence; onthe contrary, it was my proposal to him as above explained; and I declare that his statements in his raid effidavit, about my haviog sneered on the occa- tion of taking any oath, or signing any writing, and his statemente about the conversation alleged in his said affidavit to have taken place on the occasion of my signing such paper, are wholly untrue, No such trans- action ever occurred ; never, before December 24h, 1819, id be charge me with swearing or speaking faleely, ov with falsehood at all, with derision, or svornfalness, recklessness, or s mockirg manner. He never told me in his lite, that “I should not want whilst I conducted myself properly,” nor that “be was not disposed to deal with me harshly,” nor did I ever say to Me. Forrest “what is to become of me?’? I never entreated or re- quested Mr, Forrest te spare, or endeavor to spare me, 60 far as he could, or at all, the shame or disgrace of any exposure of any circumstance whatever, or to remain silent about, or to conceal, or mot to mention the in- tended separation, or any alleged eause thereof, or to defer such separation until the latter part of the month of April, 1849, or to any time when he might do ao with- out inviting special comment or remark; ani I never did, in any way, suggest, advise, or request a postpone- ment of such separation. or evek to defer the same, except es hereinafter stated. The time of separation was appointed and fixed upon by Mr. Forrest, and, be- cause I had uo power to prevent it, submitted to by me: first for the first day of March ; again, for the third Monday of Merch; again, for the first day of April; again, for the twenty-third day of April; and one or two other like appointments were made by him for taat purpore, which I am uuable precisely to remember, Each of those appointments was rescinded by Mr For. rest, of hisown motion, and for his own accommodation, At a time when the day of separation, for the time being, stood fixed for the twenty-third of April, Mr. Forrest being. as he informed me, under an engage- ment to perform at the Broadway Theatre, New York, for some weeks, commencing upon tho last-named, day, I sugzested to him that, if a separation should then take place, it would probably be imputed to his controversy with Mr. Macready; and advised him to permit me toremain with him until the close of such engagement; to which he immediately returned his dis seat, snd stated that the said separation should com- mence when our then present residence was broken up. This amounted to s pew appointment of the twenty- eighth er twenty-ninth day of April as the day for such reparation. Never, before our actual separation, did I request that apy provision should be made for me, al- though it is true that, when the separation was alluded to, Mr. Forrest soid, casually,‘ Of course, i will provide for you”—to which I made no reply ; and this waa all that ever pasted between us on that subjdet before the separation. When, as just mentioned, I suggested the view which the public might take cf the separutiony Mr, Forrest repelled the idea with utter soorn. Hespoke in this wey, as nearly as I can recollect his words Hyinaws Who knows or cares for you; whezh je. OF away Keo WHS, UF where yh ive live with me. 6) j rs thie contemptuous View of my tnvigaiteaae’ Lg reply. Mr Van Buren—I am requested to omit and do omit & paceage here. He then continued to read :-I nover secreted the al- leged Consuelo letter. or kept it concealed ; nor did the said Edwin Forrest ever discover that it contained any svowal of any illicit or driminai igtercourse. 1 verily believe that at the time the said Edwin Jforrest first came Into possersion of raid Consuelo letter, hé Was seeking for grounds upon which to frame some excuse for repudiating me; although I can scarcely believe that he had as yet conceived tho desiga of imputing un- chaste conduct: “Consuelo,” the heroine of a modern French novel, is therein reprerented as a oman characterized by the highest degree of amiability, chasti'y, purity, that the mind could conceive or language portray. The word signifies “ Consolation,’ when reudered into Eng- lish, No reason could exist for the adoption ¢f that ad- dress in raid letter. except some fancied resemblance be- tween the character of the perr¢n addressed and the heroine, The deposition of Mr, Parke Godwin, obtained by Mr. Forest, and prevented by him to the Pennsylvania Legislature, atates that about J ry, 184%, he loat Me Forrest this very novel. q afdent that Mc, Forrest so borrowed it in order to satisty nimself as to the chavacter of the imaginary fitroiné, Consuelo, and thence tv determine the practicability of founding upon the letter some charge agains: me. The charace ter dicappointed his wishes, and for tlie time he aban- dored that attempt. Ebelievs the fact to be. that he first, caw the Consuelo letter after the 18th of January; I b: lieve that he borrowed the novel, Consuelo, and wrete to Mr Jamieson about the same time; [ believe he saved himeelf the trouble of reading the novel, by casually in- quirivg of Mr, Parke Godwia. during their trip to Font- Dill, mentioned |in my former affidavit, as to the charac- ter of Consuelo. I believe that, from’ Mr, Godwin's ac- count of the hercine, he concluded that the letter would net avewer any more seriourly tnjnrious purpose, and thereupon gave way to the temptation to make it the subject of a painful evening for ine, His object in bore rowing “ Gonruelo” 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 intellec- tual perron, would bave answered this purpose perfeotly, After being thus assured on the subject, I presume Mr. Forrest eared little about Mr. Jamicson’s answer, and therefore did not await it There are circumstances connected with Mr. Forrest's present story. conclusively establishing that the Consuelo lotier bad nething to do with our separation, and that he sentenoed me to that separation on the eighteenth of January, 1819, without the slichtest suspicion on his pertof any impurity or impropriety in my demeanor as avwife In a word, be expressly ndmits that he pro- nounced that septence beenuse I uttered to him an ensive speech, and for no other cause whatever ¢ Cecinves expressly that his ecufidence in my purity was perfect wut! he found the letter. He admits that the immediate cause and provocation to his sentence inst me, wae my contradicting him on another sub ject In relation to the letter which he pretends be het found, he states that, oa that evening, « ile questioned the haxd-writiog, and hoped that the manuscript was merely an extract from a licentious Frénct novel. He determined, therefore, to take no measures on the sub jvot, until he had fully informed himself upon these cints.”” Again he says : This deponent having. afcer rome: days’ inquiry, apoertained that the wuld letter wan in the hand-writing of Mr. Jamieson, and that no part of ft was extracted from ‘Consuelo,’ was brought to the melancholy conclusion,” that his wife was guilty of im- purity, Mr. Ferrest could not now deny that the eighteenth of January WS pao Dra properly the 19th, as it was after midnight) was the date of my sentenoe ; nor could he rafely assert thal suelo” letter, The had then referred to the “Con. aly thing he could do for (he pur- ‘was necessary, and that “ hoping’? there was aninnocent explavat! he “ determined to taxe no measures upon the subject,’’ until he could make the requisite enqt i and yet, he is forced to admit that while this determina- tion existed, and this hope him, he rentenced me to the separation now existing, and avowedly at the time fora different cause. This surely is enough to es- tablish the fact which I have asserted, that Mr. Forrest impurity ‘on ‘my par or the bale! or sosplolon of by im on my or the lef or suspicion iy bin Hisown words condemn him. The manner in which Mr. Forrest has involved him- self inthis admirrion, as well as in eortain inconsistences in this of his affidavit, I will explain. His proofs for the Pennsylvania Legislature —consisting chiefly if not wholly, in the affidavite of Mre. Underwood and Robert Garvin—showell my return from a party onthe evening of Thursday, January 18th, and that a dispute ‘Was overheard between us after midnight. Mrs. Under- wood testified that on the next Saturday morning, that is, January the twentieth, I missed the Consuelo letter —expreesed terror and surprise—showed a consciousness of detected guilt. I presume the intention was, to con- nect my rearoh for the letter on Saturday morning with the dirpute of Thursday night, so as to show that that dispute arose out of my purity being then questioned. The statements contained in Mr. Forrest's affidavit, about my going to a drawer, starting back, uttering an efclamation, being arked a question by Mra Bedford. (now. Mrs Underwcod,) making a repiy thereto, ex- pressing gladness, and wishes, about drawers and letters. and burning any letters, are, and each and every 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 bave bad these proofs before him He often refers (o thera, and he has improved upon this story of Mrs. Underwood concerning my acts on Saturday mora- ing. #0 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 @ novel in two volumes. ‘This, of course, took some time. He says it took some days, Yet, by Saturday evening he made his accusations, although im respect to the handwriting, he had written for in- formation to Mr. Jamieson, at New Orleans, only the same morning. ‘The only mode to make it consistent. is to show some unexpected incident occurring on Saturday, to induce a charge of purpose; snd accordingly, Mrs. Underwoud’s observations concerning my manner and conduct, on Sat- urday morning, are here introduced. Yet, Mr. Forrest, Mrs. Underwoed, and Mr. Lawson, the procarer of her testimony, all unite in saying that none of her tales reached Mr. Forrest's ears for more than one whole year after this time, that is to say, until February, 1860. It will be seen from this, that in his present state- ment, Mr Forrest has greatly perverted the facts, and yet done himeelf no service. Whether he found the let- ter on the eighteenth of January or not, the result is the same; be did not act upon it en that , yet on that doy ho deoreud the seperation, t is not true that carefully, or in any way, at Cincin- nati, or anywhere else, I preserved about my person a bundle of letters; nor do I believe that Mr. Forrest ever thought he had observed any such act. I never entreat- ed or requested Mr. Forrest’s silence in relation to any act or conduct of mine. nor did she ever agree to_be ai- lent to shield me from ehame or suffer insilence. I den: eli his allegations in these respects. 1t never was agreed, between Mr. Forrest and myself, to occupy as before, the same apartment, to avoid the suspicions or scauda- lous comments of servants or to avoid apy censequence, por Was anything ever said or understood between Mr. Forrest and myrelf on that subject. The intended se. paration of Mr Forrest and myself, was known to the servants from the first, one of them having overheard the dispute on the eighteenth of January, 1849; and im- mediately afterwards it was talked of throughout the neighborhood. It was not until about a week after that time, that anything was said between us about our con- duct in connection with such separation, Then, for the first time, Mr. Forrest stated to me that he wished the cause of our separation to be kept a secret; that he did not wish it known that any person lived after impeach- ing bis veracity; that it was no other person’s business; that it was our own affair and we had 4 right to do as we pleased, I acquiesced; but did not exactly promise obedience. I remarked that I must mention it to my sis- ter, and might find it almost necessary to state it to some otherfrien¢s Te added. that he wished no cne to know it; and I remained silent This was before the Consuelo letter Was spoken of by Mr. Forrest After that subject wes introduced, he made the same request for silence; and I presume considered me us having ac- quieeced, for I answered pretty much as before. Mr, Forrest was never requested by me, after he spoke of suid Consuelo letter, to enter into society with me, nor did be decline soto do. He was never inthe habit of going into any society, and the only friends we raw, were those who came to our own house, Subsequently to our return from Europe, in 1846, Mr. Forrest and I accepted but four invitations to dine out together; but, onell other occasions, Mr, Forrest would urge me to go without him; sometimes I did so. The only invitation we received after Jonuary 18, 1849, was one to sup with Mr, and Mrs. Bryant ked Mr Forrest if he wished my to g0; be raid. “Do as you please;” but I felt too sadly, and feared thatI should not be able to contro! my feelings Guring a whole evening; 80 I did not go. Mr. Forrest went. Dir. Forrest so unifcrmly refused all invitations, that ovr friends ceared to ask him to visit ther I di not epprsl to Mr, Forrest to conduct me to Mr. God- win’s bouse, or in any Way request him to do so, On the 27th of April, I asked Mr. Forrest to request Mr. Laweon to call on me that evening Mr. For- test went out, and on hie return, saidthat Mr Lawson would call in the evening as I desired. He asked why I wished tosee Mr Lawson LI replied, that as Mr Law- eon had been my father’s friend, I considered that he would be the most proper person for mo to request to call tor me and conduet me to Mr. Godwin’s. Mr Forrest immediately eaid, * I'l take vou there myself:” to which proposition I mort gladly assented. Mr. Lawson how- ever called, as be had been directed, and I told him why I bad requested the interview, but that of cours pre- ferred that Mr. Forrest should take mo. Dr, Lawson agreed with mo that this was best. ‘The affidavit of Mr. Jamieson to which Mr Forrest re- fers was wade without any solicitation or interference ch my part, and a copy vf it sent, aa I believe, to a New York newspaper for publication, ‘The pereon to whom it was fent Ly Mr. Jamieson, banded it to my counsel, and J intend that it sail be presented to the court in this case, It was not prepared for, or ev ord before the Penn- syivania Legislatnre to my knowledge or belief, Once, uring the interval between the 18zh of January and the nd of April, 1849, Mr. Forrest spoke of some person going te Kentucky, or rome distant Etate, to obtain g gl vyorce for incompatibility of temper, J asked *", tt ne vitae i GLy9r9®, NBD 89477 Coat if he did I weuld go with bum, cut ot the State wherever it could be obtain- ed, He replied that he did nat desire it. I presume I enid this more than once But | never made, through Uenry Wiko!l, cr otherwise, directly or indireotly, any prop Cellion, WrtlEH Cryerpe, £0 leave the country, to renounce Mt. Forrest's rame, ot fo Youve Sty allowaniseT bis generority; not did I ever pone or agtve to make no opposition to any application to the Legislature of Yenrsylvaria, which alleged or should allege inconti- nence egalnst me ; nor did I ever make or authorize aa} psOporal tor any amiceble or other arrangement with Mr. Vorsestabout & divorce, after Le commenced his applica- ia Legislature. hen Mr. Forrest was at home, the closed and the family retired at ten or eleven Ever Fince our iarriage, we were in the habit i our friends know ; and Was continued even until the week of our reparation, On the Sunday prior to the separation, some of Mr. Forrest's friends who dined with ue, did not leave cur houre until after four o'clock the next morning It is untrue that our house was a afene ct revelry and in- temperance Curing Mr, Forrest’s absence. Mr. Forrest bed always, fince the time we first wont to live in veond street. express sire that if I wishet jadies, T should do a0 in his absence ; and it my custom (0 do so for years, aa I found tt al racat iinpcesible to induce him to go into society, and his absence on professional dutios, was the only excuse { could make fer bin retasivg to visit his friends, As i generally accompanied Mr, Forrest when he left home, riunities which X had for seeing the few friends » still Kind enough to continue their acquain. toxrce with me, under there circumstances, were very rare Mr, Ven Buren—Thore is another pi asked not to read, and I omit it, He then continued— ‘There is not the slightest truth In the charge Perence made against me by Mr. Forrest in his paid fdavit. Inever was intoxicated, in any degree, in my I never heard of euch a charge, from avy quarter il Mr. Forrest's affidarite, printed ia February or It is irue that Captain Caloraft, an old friend of my t, visited me ud my sister occasionally ; that he dined with us, and once helped to carry a tray, utioned im bis affidavit ; it is teae that Mr. Samuel Maxeden Raymond spent one night at our house ; it is trve that Richard Willis, his sister-in law, Mrs. N. P. Willis, Mrs, Voorhies, and myself, 1 «ne oceesion, under circumstances perfectly justifying the act, did stay up a whole night uotil day’ T's ticn to the Pennsy lv, Tt is not true thet house wa o'eleck. true, that Mr. ard Mrs. NP, Willis, together Lave visited me; it may be, that on geome o n Mr Henry Wikett ¢ with me in a carriage onan eveaitg. Dr. Rich, on some few oocasions, { am not sure of ben twice, visited me. protesetonaily. in my sick cbember, atter ten o'clock at night, during a period of tr f a severe attack of in- onfimed wit Profese believed, i ed, bad desired Mr, Hackley foinquire how Iwas; there was no fire except in my élek chamber, and, for ¢ rpose ¢f introducing him to @ Warm reom, ani facilita quiry of Mrs. Heck where, in presence the poli nessage or in- he was asked into my chamber, y sieter, he remained a few e “esTam Tam asked uot toread it, but I will read it.—Lavghter | Ad with these ex isn, Laver that none of the fnote etatod in Mr. Forrest's affidavit, on information de- rived from Mrs. Underwood and Rebert Garvin, ot feom the affidavits or depositions of elther of those persons, or as appearing in their testimony or evidence, or stated In Mr. Forrest's affidavit to have been wn, seen, OF heard, by either of those two persona, or as having at- trncted the atieation, oF exciiew bite surplus UE wqestbow known by to by them, oreither of them, in such a manner as to jer them responsible to the laws of this, or any other State. Whenever veuare so to testify, T can effeo- tually contradict peach them, we When I first came to my house, in Sixteenth street, it was in @ very unfinishea state, and a whole menth ela) fe we used any door for entrance or exit but basement. We used the basement room also for our meals, and, indved, for all purposes dering the day, because the were unfinished. Dr. Hack- ley onee or twice during this period, and one wven- ing he eame just as we were going to tea; he joined us, and piety ani Mr. Stevens peed, and rang tbe bell as I am well ‘which ha day been put up). The servant, as am informed and believe, on admitting him, asked him to come down to tea, but he declined and went into the lor, which was not completely furnished, When we Bad ghishea tea, Dr. Hackley said, “I have am engage- ment, #0 I will not go up stairs, or I shall stay too long,” and he left by the same door which he had entered, and which we had all been in the habit et using until that day. I believe Mr. Stevens was the first person who bad Letty Fe eeel sn ie afttaritof ‘Ale. Boevest, ndrew Btev. zane a of Mr. Forrest, 20m, who sided M is the same r. Ferrest in the trans- mission of letter tome in December, 1349; he has been Mr. Forrest’s inetrument throughout this atfai has reviled myself and my sister shamefully in the n pers ; and, asLamadvired snd verily believs, he can Beeftectually impeached whenever he sha!l appear in « court of justioe, and depose to any of the matters whic Mr. Forrest asserts on his authority. There isnot any trutn whatever in the etatements alleged in Mr. For- rest’s affidavit to have been made by him, ssid Stevens. 1 did not intend, by anything in’ my former affidavit, to convey the idea that after the 18th of January, ins", Mr. Forrert gave me any reason to believe that he would relent, or that his affections had returned tome. He wanifested, in the presence of others, kindness and ex ternal respect gemerally; he rometines seemed hind, for 8 brief space, when we were slone. But | felt all along that a reparation must take plece, rceompanied by « fuint hope that it. might cot endure for ever, His man- Der Was not of an honorable man to a guilty wife; he made-me in every way subse: vient to his pleasure and convenience. In relation to the testimony of the Rev. E. L. Magoon, spoken of in Mr ‘orrest’s affidavit, the facts are as follows :-—-I was on terms of the greatest great wi him; I cenceived him to be an honor. able gentleman, anda true, pure-minded Christian. His letters, in my possession, apd ready to be produced, mani- fest a regard for meof the kindest description, Lf the Consuelo letter bad not been found, there are so kindly, affectionate, and familiar, they would have anewered Mr. Forrest's purpose about as well though they are certainly pure and innocent. I remem- ber suying to Mr. Magoon that Mr, Forreat was variable in bis demeanor toward me; that sometimes be was mo- roge, tometimes he was affectionate, and frequently treated me more like « sister than a wife. I uaderstand he bas testified to my baying told him * that for several months previous to her late separation, she and her hus- band had known each otber only as brother amd sister ” Ibave no doubt my figurative use of the word sinter was misunderstood by him. I presume that he really thinks that I made him the Mg 3 immodest and unbecoming communication which be has reported. I did not make it. Idid not appons Mr. Magoon believed me capable of making it. No one could have persuaded me that he was capable of #0 construing any words of mine. Mr. Megoon has never sworn to this,as I am informed and believe, in any due mannrr, s0 as to make it evidence. My letter of December 29, 1849, was not written by, or under, or in conrequence of advice, counsel, or urgency, from apy ene. 1 wrete iton my own motion, though did show it to Mr. Godwin befire transmitting it. I ne- ver assured Mr. Forrest, or admitted to him, or to any oue else, that the sum allowed me was sufficient. I did not leave Mr, Forrest, or his residence, volunta- rily, or covrent to a separation; I did not resist—men at the place of execution never resiet, yet I suppose they are not willing to die; Iwas quiescent, as they usually are, - and contented no more than they do. There never was any understanding that Mr. Forrest was to pay my board = Mr, Forrest, at our meeting in the street, did not speak. por did I repiy to him, as in his affidavit is ttuted, except that he did revile my sister, as he alleges. Mr. Lawson once said to me that Mr. Forrest could not dispore of real estate without my signature to the decd of conveyance; he said “{ suppose you would not refure this??? To which I replied. * Of course not Mr. Stevens told me, # few days afier this, that Mr. Forrest intended to reqnert Mr. Sedgwick to draw up a deed of settlement, so that if I were in Kurope, I could rely upon having my allowance ‘yguiarly, Mr. Stevens told me, cn the evening on whic he brought me Mr. Forrest's letter of December 24, 1849, that Mr. Forrest had seen Mr Secgwick, and had ascertaincd from him that could not by any deed legally sign away my right 0° dower, and that the only way Mr. Forrest could settle the matter, and obtain full right over his own property, was by obtaining a divoroe, Idid not make any offer, nor did Mr. Forrest make any declinature on this sub- ject, except os I bave above stated Itis true that Mr Forrest offered me one of three houses in Twenty-secon ( street (wh eh repted at that time for three hundred and ceventy- five dollars each # year) and five hundred do!- Inrs a year to live upon; of course I declined the efter. My present course of life ia not prodigal, nor reckles+, nor do I give expensive entertainments to any persons, or receive or entertain any person or persons of \oose or dey raded character, as Mr Forrest untroly alleges. We bave little time to receive visiters during the day, but we are always at bome to any friends who may call in the evening. As we dine eariy, and. as-during all my life I have taken supper, we have that meul every night at ten o'clock; and if there bappens to be any Visiters with un, are usually asked to jcin us. Twiee only since we have bad the housein Sixteenth street, have we invited any number of personsin aneveniag, und then they came sociably. I never pretended to glve parties. As to entertaining or receiving women whom Mr For- rit charges with being unworthy, and gentlemen against whom he ulleges oriminality, 14 is impossible for me to avoid doing 80, unless I would exclude myself from all rociety, even including my cwn sister. Many of Mr. Vorrert's charges are, doubtless. made for this express purpoee, and consider it my right; as it is really neoss- rary to my safety, to resist this attempt to exciude me trem society. Mr. Forrest has furnished conclusive evi- to me, that he makes charges without believing them to betrue. For instance, bis proofs furnished to the Le gisiature of Pennsylvania, in March, 1850, implicate, anong many others, Mr, Henry Wikoil Dr. Kicd, ®yq Dr, Buckley, In hia libel, presented to the Philad pitta Court, in August luet, be named eight, ary in rcrminatory answer to my notion for a divorce, in October Isat, he nemed fix Particioators in my alleged Kullt. gyelttine Be Becton ithe weet. abd all these three gentiomen in the latte: howirg (hat be did not believe the chargeagaivst (hem And then on the 15th of November. 1850, he swore to bis enid affidavit in this action, again implicating all three of them, and accom. punied it with a recriminatory ancwerMin the same ac- en, omittiag mes; so. that. in this very actitn, end on the same day, he charged them, and gave ee that on thetriel he Nd not attempt to WeeMt mvs ~ ras In hie Vaile ‘hia libel from Bee We tragciat't Mad Ts cmMtad, Se state that he ‘ors not know the name Of shy of the guilty participr- four not therein named; thus éxp2asly declaring that he did mot believe the charge against him. . ‘The charge of keeping unworthy company, and of evil habits and character, made aguicst my sister Margaret, by Mr. Forzest. sre wholly untrue LHe never made such charges unt) the present yox:, to my knowledge or ba- let. Itisalaowntroe thal I ever made parties for the purpcse of bringiag Mrs. Voorhies into society. I used to meet all. or nearly all, the ladies of my nequaintase at her rooms in Great Jones ai here che boarded with Mrs Ingbam fortwo years prior to our taking the house in Sixteenth street./"The character of her associa. tious may be judged from the fact that I hold the letters of Judge Conrad and Mr. Magoon, the witnesses of Mr, Forrert. written rince our reparation, and spesking of her ip the Bindest terms. She has been» cho ister ia one of the Episcopal churches for keven pears yas It would not become me to give # list of her rspestable friends, but I be may permitted to name those | oan at the moment remember of ber party + 18th January. 1840, om my retura from whiely I was sentenced to sepa ration They are:—Mr George Hall, formerly Mayor of Brooklyn. and lady. Miss Hell. Mr. all; Mr. Valentine G. Hall, Mre, Halt. Mies Hall; Mr Voorhles, Mire Voor. i Mr, aod Mra. Wm. 0. Bryant; Rey. Mr Bellows, Mrs. Bel- lows; the Rev. 8, Parker; Mrs. ©. M. Kirkland, Miss Kirkland; Mr. and Mrs. N. P. Willis; Miss Anne 0. Lynch; Mr. and Mra Henry Swift, of Brockiyn; Mr.and Mrs, Robert Watson: Mies Kate Sedgwick; Mra. Captain Bsiiton. Mies Britton; Mr, and Mrs. Thomas Logham; Mr Obarles Ingham. the Misses Ingham; Monsieur and deme Troy; Mr. and Mra, Lehman; Madame Oppen- teim; the Rev, J. T. Headley; Mr. Tweedie. | have alroady stated that Mr, Forrest's friend, Mr. James Law- cn, and his lady were there, also Mr. Forrest rtates that, on the evening of my return is party, he spoke of “the dangerous character oointions”’ of my sister. and that in the courre of a heated argument he 80 characterized them, and im- my offenrive response to these remarks on his p ‘The tact is otherwise. Immediately on my return, be inquited who hod been at the party. “1 told him, and he sermed quite satisfied, He could not have been other- wire Ttistrue, he asked if Mr. Stevens was there. [| aid No;” and to this he made no response, He then hegen complaining that [ was more attached to my sister then to bim, He said nothing against her purity or,| wrrals, but charged her in strong and harsh terms with ’| v: fencing and prejudicing me against his, and being ppoted to bim. “This was the whole tenor of his | remark#, but the manner aud terms used wore very | revere | Mr. Van Buren—Here are two passages which [am | ake d not to read, but which | intend to read:— The letters which Mr. Forrest found, from me, he saw and examined without telling me he ecr Lknew be bad, from ex!racts which I sa bed made from them, and which were in his p Tenid be was most welcome to ree them read them with me, and seemed quite sat +xpisoation of the reveral parts of them ver forbs lio. and he then Hed with my e my sister to ¥, OF Objected to demoralizing, discredits ble, pproper inany way, He had, indeed, previously to at time and beginning about Vovember, 1548, shown il willto ber, and in January, 1949, charged her with | imfluenoing me to didfer with him in opinion Mr Van buren—< am asked to emit the next passage, end I do omit it: — Counrel than continued to read—Mr.and Mrs, Willis Meed With Mie Kverwot wed my iC at ous Moyen, ia ong, | Mr. Forrest, Mr. Willie, and ‘myself visited Fonthill to- gether in 1848 ; and the most friendly relahions sopeure? always to at it between Mr. Forrest and Mr. I never heard a murmur against Mr. Willis from Mr. For- rest until the summer of 1849, after our when Mr. Forrest expressed to me his disratisfaction with some article published by Mr. Wilus in bis paper about the Astor place riots, and abort Mr. Forrest’s dispute with Mr. Macready. I do not frel bound to enter into the controversy between Mr. Forrest end Mr. Willia. excent where it directly touches myself. I never heard that Mr. Forrest suspected or c! ny impropriety between Mr. Willis and myself un! bruary, 1850. In the fall of the year 1848, Mr. Forrest wrote me from Philadelphia to open his writing desk and get therefrom a Jetter received by him from Mr. Macready, whilst he and Mr. Macready were friends. Le informed me that the key of the desk was in his library drawer, “which,” said he, “you can open with one of the num- berless stray keys about the house.” I tried to do so, beginning with the key of my own bureau, which,though it went into the look, would not turnin it, I was then obliged to have it picked by a locksmith, Iis said letter is in my possession. At the time of Mr. Forrest’s separation frem me, he ‘was engaged in a furious controversy with Mr. Macready, which ultimately led to shooking violence and bloodshed, and the loss of many lives; and during the whole pro- gress of that controversy, Mr, Forrest did his utmost to attract public attention to it. Mr Forrest asserts, on information and belief, that Previcusly to December. 1849, 1 had, on juent occa- sions. and to divers persons, misrepresented the cause of our sepazaticn, and had ascribed it to the misconduct of Mr Forrest, and bad alleged that it arose from my opposi- tion to his course in a controversy with Mr. Macready. He atates further, that this misrepresentation, in his judgment, reflected so deeply upon his character that he | telt compelled to vindicate himself by a resort to the tri- bunals of his country, From circumstances, I verily believe every part of this statement of Mr. Forrest to | be absolutely untrue, In the first place, prior to Decem- ber 24th, 1849, I never did tell any one (except my aister Margaret, and what little Isaid to Mr. Lawson) anything about the cade of cur separation; and F told her the truth, i. e.. that the assigned cause, and the only cause of which I had apy knowledge or assurance, was my contradicting Mr. Forrest’s remark about her. In the next place, Mr Forrert has never offerad any proof of the suid wsrertion, made by him on information and be- lief ; aud if be ha i, informant he could produce him, Prior to December 24th, 1849. I never did, directly or in- directly. ascribe our separation to the misconduct of Mr Forrest, unless the above statement to my sister was such ascription, or alleged that it arose from my opposi- tion to hiv course in the controversy with Mr. Macready, crin any way mirrepresent the eause of said separation, Linsist that if any one did impute our separation too dinvgreement about the Macready controversy, it weuld have been an advantage to Mr. Forrest's reputation: All his friends knew that the separation was his act; he says that he meant to assign no reason forit, and had promised me, io case of no new deling torigh ddefena me agaiost any insult. to be an innocent and ‘animpeached wife, put away, without any cause, by the arbitrary will of husband. ‘This would have placed Mr. Forrest's character and con- duct in the worst light that could have been reflected upon it, It was, I submit, an extevuation of his appa Tent mirconduet, if any one, in charity towards him, re- presented that we had a disagreement about the Mac: ready business, which induced a separation. I would observe further on this head: It was easy tosee thatthe public would impute our separation to that affair, if no otber cause war assigned for it. Any one would expect it. [told Mr. Forrest that such would probably be the cuse. ond he must have expected it. I think I can prove clearly that he vever believed ma to bethe author of any such representation, and that | the vindication. cf his character from thia or any other imputation bad nothing to do with hia application for a divorce. as he now untraly pretends, is counse) and mine met on the twenty-ninth of Jau- nory, 1860, ne etated in my former affidavit. I am in- formed by my couneel, and verily believe that the coun- rel of Mr. Forrest suggested that very gently insinuated chorges ot deviations from strict propriety not reeogniza- Lie at law, would probably be deemed sufficient by the legislative committer, and that Mr. Theodore Sedgwick, professing to act for Mr. Forrest, gave my counsel the wort positive assurances that even these charges and the Freofs by which they might be made to pasa, should be scrupulously concealed, and forever hidden from the public view. My counsel, as I am_ informed and believe, to, the great dissatisfaction of Mr. Sedg wick, replied that to conceal the legislative aetion of a scvereign State, seemed to him a@ vaio un dertaking; that if attempted and otherwise practica- ble, the public attention would be drawn to this appar- ently greurdl+ss divorce, and not only the :membirs of the legislature, but Mr. Forrest himself would be con- ined in their own justification to publish the grounds, the preofe,and Mrs. Forreet’s consent amounting toa virtual oontersion. My coursel has his correspondence | with Mr. Fedgwick, dated in January and February, 1850; | ard] can prove ajl these facts fully. I have the written | propcsition of Mr Forrest's counsel, Mr. Sedgwick. sent to me through Sr, William C. Bryant in February, 1860, one cause of which is— Fourthly.—Mr. Forrent will pled friend that be will not cive any p testime ny adduced i pel, 80 solf to some mutual | city tothe charges or ‘din the application; and will prevent any riven them by others ‘now or hereafter, Io at the application will be eouchod in the moat | eeneral terms posible, and contain no ay To Which Bay bo unnceossary to the object of obtaining a di- vorce Mr. Seevwick will. 24 any time that may be desired, com- munire'e with Mr. O’Conor in relation to this matter. | Tt wil berven, therefore, that “the object” of all his threats ond invectives, from the ith of December, 1519, | to the middle of February, 1850, was not to vindicate bis cbarscter, ashe now represents, but for “obtaining a | divorce.” T do not think Mr. Forzest so weak as to aban- | | don bis wife in York, and to seek from the Legiea- ture of aucther State a law exonsrating his character Ce ber reproaches, His object must have been dif- ferent. When Mr. Forrest called at Mr. God:qtn’ 2 0 the 3ist of May, 1840, to sve me. hetaq ites he eat in ali probability remove his sisters goin Philadelphia to | Fouthill, rome time during th, summer, and that they were to keep house for bis ¢here Tam informed and | believe, tbat he contin yegthe building or finishing of | the large heuse. 87 some time during the mcnth of No- | Fember, 1848." archased edditional furniture tor his ii- | brary there g As M*. Porrest chooses tomake public ourintatcourse | ? "Cention to bis coutroverry with Mr Muacroady, I will | ate the fects. We certainly had eerious differences about Mr, Fervest’s couduct towards Mr. Macready. stror gly ditspproved of his hissing My. Macready in Ede | inburg im 1846. aud remonstrated with him for the man- ner in which be spoke of Mr. Macready. prior to his (Macready ') ariivelin this country in 1848, I objected to Mr. Forrest's Mybit of stating on nll occasions, in promiscuous ccnpanie’, his determination to have Afac- ready diiven frow shos:sgv. and to Mr. Forrest's leaving meney at 1 and senuing some to New Orleans in 1848, for the furtherance of the above ehjeat, as Mr, For. eet Jnformed me he had dons, j t. Forrest frequently besame very angry with me abeut thi, ws be wste ted the part I took ia the mate | ter. to my Epe!*:}; fesiing, 1 repeatediy assured him it Maa net #6. but thae Ltaoaght he compromised hig ow by che violence ot his Opposition, War~ (Var, Bir, Mactendy made a speesh 23 ot Sy ind ot lente which conveyed to ee ge latret % Ausband, I felt an 4 wite | ae ae ould resent it. When I exed cient und Knowing the state of was laboriny, I said every- r which he 7 sana " thing 5 to CbooUlge, ANd nothing £0 oppore bim. On my joimng bim in j'SiixPelphia in the autumn of 1548, he asked’ me again $0 tell him more particulerty bow I approved of his “eard.” I then roid I remetted he had inserted any epithe*4, upon which be became very angry, and blamed me for w*ut of sincerity in my letter ¢ and [told bin true, that I preferred ng anything w not be egreentle especially t cumMances, when surely it was not the part add to his vesations,—that when many join him. even tf I bud thought bim more in tl I did, | could not ray #0. The terms * Mac. runied ¢ ete, nee qnoted from Mr. wn v iis fn wife to | Jin blaming | wrong than “ enpera- orrest’s suid letters are in my pos- wrought up to such a atate of excite ady. that his frienda feared lest he roasou, and [could not have at- ol or oppore him tempted to cor I never urged him to viclent measures egainst Mr, Macrondy if had imputed our separation to the Macready con. troversy, 1 te not certain that I should have done Mr. | ‘ Lenn hardly impute so grave an [lle angry and vindictive pas. gathering new strength and | vutrol over him from the mo +, im 1846, influenced in by Mactvady, appeared oved his course against cly, aud in all things, and I raight paration to this cam sand Feould not be su: etber it was not # reason to believe th ert an he Me. ongevoe with @ woman of respecta- but of bed reputetion. To this caure, tm fact, in my own mind, I mainly attri- buted bis desertion, wnd my Dope of reclaiming him hung upon the tation that he migbt beoome tired of that attach Although during the period subsequent to our return urcpe, in 1846, my sicong affection for Mr, Forrest fien sorely tried by unscernly and violent ebullitions passion, by a dirposition at times to be so sullea and morose that his best fiends scarcely knew how to ap preach him, and by a morbid feeling on his part that he ¥as not appreciated by the world ; yet, until the last tew months of our married life, I always felt a confidence that a cersation ¢t professional inbor weuld restore tranquillity toa mid rendered unsteady by the unbounded indui gence of eelf-willand evil passions, and that he would at pgth appreciate the affection which bad unoomplai- ingiyendured fo much. Nut from an early period ia 1848, hope almost deserted me. Inever ria to James Lawson that I had asked Mr. Forrest whether he had a word to say aguinst me asa wife, nor did Fever tell Mtr. Lawson that Mr, Forrest suid, “No Catharine, 20, and would to God I could, for then I should not ruifer the ugony L now feel” All’ that Mr. Lawson bas testified to on that subject in his affidavit in thie action, taken before Joseph Strong on the 15th No- vem ber, 1800, is utterly untrue, No conversation of the kind vor anything bearing the least resemb to it, ever took place betweem me and Mr. Lawson. The rela: tion which Mr Lawson holds to Mr, Forrest, the total ab- fence of any foundation for this statement, the course Mr Laween has pursued in this business, and the un. questionable puteyid Of pie said wilidaris Ga aa. iaey f° hope thet he may, I will be al | to interpret them for us tthe cir. | } == PRICE TWO CENTS. spect, warrant me in saying that this statement is not # mere mistake on his part. Whem my action is tried, if Mr. Lawson should sppear as a witness, and I earnestly to prove, as I verily be- Laos, the mane of fei pasieee Mdavit concerning him, y a wo ether witnesses in cisely to the same effct as Mr, Parke Gain” pF deed Mr. Lawson has misrepresented the matter of his \attar in my tehalf to my father. Mr. Lawsonisa coumtryman of my father. I thought he was my father’s friend and mine, and I now think he was; but it has become his in- tereat to act in hostility to us.’ I wrote him a note ra- questing him to write to my father for me, breaking to him the ill news of our separation. He wrote according- ly as I know; for my father returned me the original | 3 the 2nd of May, 1849, Mr. Lawaon sent mea copy of bis letter to my father, and hia reply to my said a ©. They are in my possession, and are in the follow- De — (Here follows Mr. Lawson’ letter to Mrs. Forrest, dated 2d of May, 1849, already published and marked No. 19. in omar 5 prcontnnas, Mr. Van Buren read it again, and also Mr, Lawson's letter to Mr. Sinciair, dated May 1, 1840, ard which has aiso already appeared j Mr. Van Buren continued to read from the affidavit:— It will be seen that Mr. Lawson, under his own hand, itten at the very time, declared that Mr Forrest read \d approved his letter to my father, containing the aa- tertion ef aay lmacoince; yet now, it seenring to be me- ceseary'for his employer's p be testifies that anid letter was sent without Mr. snowing its con- tents, He told me about the time, that Mr. Forrest had read and approved it, I underrtand and believe that he 80 stated to others. 8 to Mr. Lawson's desire Mr. Forrest and myrelf, I do not deny it; he was ready to serve Mr. Forrest at all times. The amount of his efforts I will briefly state. He called on me in October, 1549, and said that he had had « long conversation with Mr, Forrest, and that he had every reason to believe that & reconciliation between Mr. Forrest and myself w: no means impossible; on the contrary, that Mr. Forfeat entertained very different views on many subjects since his separation from me, and wished to come and fee me, but would not. unless he could be sure not to meet Mirs, Voorhies, Mr. Lawson then sug- gested that Mrs. Voorhies should leave the house in order to conciliate Mr. Forrest. Some few even- inga after this conversatiowapIr. Lawson enlled again, end said that Mr. Forrest was most anxtous to know whether I hud consented to send my sister away, and further, that Mr. Vorrest had remarked, * By t! test her affection for me,if rhe hasany” I told Me. Lawron that we bad taken the house in sixteenth etraet together, and made all our arrangements to stay thers: during the winter; it would be most inconvenient for my sister to leave, and that his sugestions should have beem wade prior to the taking of the house; Mr. Lawson said, “I'm sure for the furtherance of such an object, aha would consent to go fora week or two.’’ Lreplied that I could not ask her to doo, but would tell her the sub- stance of our conversation, and would let him know hee d+termivation the following day, whem [ should cail oa him tor my quarterly allowance. After his departure, my sister and i had some conversation on the subjrct, and ehe at once determined to leave the hous# and re: main away during the apase of two months. which she accordingly did. Un the morning after, Mr. Lawson's Inst visit, I wrote the following note, watch I gave to him myrelf,and which be informed me he inimediately sant by Mr Btevens to Mr. Forrest at Fonthill; Mr. Fortes: being, as he said, most impatient to kaow my determina. tion [Here follows Mra, Forrest's letter to Mr. Lawson, cvad on Monday, and marked No 14 | Mr. Van Buren continued to read from the affiavit — Mr. Lawron called on me and said be should go to Foat- bili on the following day (Sunday), and that be would have a converration with Mr. Forreat, and that ho had no doubt, in fact. from what Mr. Forrest bad nlready said, he would secure mo, that within one week he and Mr Ferrest would come and dine with mv in Sixteenth street; I heard no more from Mr. Lawson until « fortnight after, when he wrete me a note encloring a bil which had sent to Mr, Forrest by a milliner for soma bonneta \d made for me, prior to my separation from Mr. Forrest; Mr. Lawson called on ime one or two evenings prior to thin correrpondence; but I declined seeing him; in the first place, because I felt nurt wt being trithed with on & matter of such importance, and, im the eecond piace. because I wiehed to receive auy communication he might have for mein writing; he wrote me as he states, December 1, 1849; his letter contained additional mat- ters which he bas omitted; I give the balance of it and my apewer to it: © received your note of Tuesday even- inv; you still labor undera misapprehension You write vnkindly, nay harshly, to your best friend. Never since I first knew you, to this hour, have I Init a word unswid, or am act undone that would please or serve you If 1 understand you rightly, people have convinced you that Tam your enemy Who are these people’ what am Inccured 61? Tam willing to plead before any ene, or sllof them at once. Ready at troth but firm to re Not knowing how L1uight be received after two such epilation, [ have written this, which I should much prefer to have spoken. I am, my dear Mrs, Forrest, yours kindly, 3L.” Yo this I replied :-— Drax Bix :— About a fortnight ago, I received a not frcm you which wounded me so deeply, that I could not rerelve to reply to you. my mind had been wrought up to tuch sn intense state of excitement and anxiety, and [ was +o much weakened by illness, that I feared I' should be again misunderstood if I were to express myzelf as ( ‘elt. ‘Though I havesutlered deeply during the whole time that these negotiations were pendiug, I never im- pugned your motives for acting as yeu did. L only binmed you for deceiving me as to tha state of Mr. For- Tert's feelings, and for giving mo hopes which had n> grounds but in your own imagination; but in conveying * \eme the failure of your attempts, you broach topics Which are understood by none save Mr. Forrest and my- self; and express opinions which | am certain Mr. ¥or- Test never ranctioned; we discussed onr own affairs log enovgh to preclude tae necessity of our having any 009 When [saw Mr, Forrest, sub- requent to our separation, he gave me every assurance of his belief in my sincerity, and that feith I have dona nothing since to ferteit, Prior te these last fow weeks, U had always entertained @ hope and belief. that time alone could beal the existing breach, and that when thy redec- tion cf Jeurs had fovthed some present asperities, we might both be again comparatively bappy; for this rea- con I bave discourpged all interforence in the matter. and baye permitted roone to question or discuss Mr. For- icst's motives orconductin my presence, I conceived the tecond note which I wrote to you, and to which you refer: to be an explanation of my iirst, and called at your house (be day I sent it, (when { was extremely unwell), in crder to show you that [bad no un‘tiendly fevling to, you. 1 bave always weloomed you as a friend, for, till row, Thave thought you one; thoes who knew better than { did, ray you could not He xo to both partior, but I, concel ur interests (Mr, Forrest's and tine}, to ba i actcdaccordingly. Mr Forrest andl parted I learn with eadness, that his feeliogs have changed ind to you rlore can tarcribe the blame, Thmt ould bea matter of little importance to you, T cam tstand: Tam notin A porition to male It of conse- qquence=-ont your Ohri tmas will gaia nothing ia mirth nt by the :f-ction {gt you have wounded one 'Y Slering deeply, and wit "| whole country on whom #be has a w-** tp, j With inven rékpect” and sme sorrow thus to eluse & | friecdship of twelve years standing. f remaia, &e., CATHARINE No FORREST vit, worn before John Livingston. Paua- a Cormimiariouer, February 23th, 1850, mentioned io my former affidavit, Mr. Lawaon made the fotlo xing Petruary instant, (1850,) Mrs. 0 82 Wall atreat, buriness unicated to the for the frat ber knowledge of the facts contained in hee ‘ep jon Mr. Forrest was then absent from the city of” New York. and, upon his return a few days afterwards, £ nicated to him the result of my interview with derwcod. acd have no doubt thet this was the iret ki owtedge Mr F. {the nature of the fasta stated io that dep sition ate thr ‘This was upon 1 tinctly announced Le obtained by my © ther circumstance w aad f hele f that interview was to induce Wee & statement against me, and that sality coud ult,’ aud the object , that Underwood to make trode of attaining that object was preconceried betweem Mr. Forrest and Mr. Lawon Mr. Van Buren=J am arked to omit the following put Trhall read thers tavits, but Tam infor ily believe, that I cau prove y be relevant, the representation r aid Lawson to Lis Intimates that th tences, down to ‘impurity ade by ofr. Law: son communi result’ to his, Ue Forrest dropped upon the floor, with ruch suddenoess aad vi lence that ke burt himse usiderably. This was five # weeks after bis letter of 24th December, 0% with impurity, It was quite t me who was wrong inthe u that I answered t I did not ay are lathate effect, of al fons of tua! Uawecu, Ah, sir. the diflleul'y in ow third party knows it.’ nor anything tot fay woything nearer to it than is He eays theses were my very words I deny it Jutely da last Lawson by ons T believe these worde and the w were written for Mr t disobey. acted Mr Lawson enid nothing to me about ement i gave him the ides that the cause was an insult Mr Forrest could not get over; I* think he said sometbicg about no one elee knowtyg it,and that I said one other person did know tt garet, but did not nate her. dir ish for its conceal copt my rister Mr Van Buren--From this te ad of ths affidavit, Tam asked not toread, but I will read part of is. He then contitned to read Mr, Forrest speaks of another aM@Javit in his posses sion, containing a charge again. never coourred, and as he has not v or even the alleged participate: her answer to that imputation __ I did not furnish for the prete a copy of my complaint inthe ection for an absolute divorce, as alieged by Mr rest. My counsel as [ betieve, used his bast exoctions The (aot alk keep it concealed, and for th. od it B filed. I believe thata copy was oislued [roan ey'acilce and rent te preas by 6 parsua friendly tome, If Lhatsent it, Me. Bor est Ae no right tocomplain, He “as by bimoef and his welt. known agents, been continualiy Vilitj ing me in tay pub Uc prints,as I am fully savured A longthy aed meas scandalous attack upon ma, made mootha ago ina Phile Wel pAlb Gael, Wa Lkaarmnioly wous vy em ve ml Om in T wilt for a reconciliation betwoom |” ~ aes