The New York Herald Newspaper, January 22, 1852, Page 1

WHOLE NO. 1027. MORNING EDITION: eee mp ae nea ON eet sae” Sree. ToT THE NEW_YO RA TT ----THURSDAY, JANUARY 22, 1852. THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE. | Conclasion of the Samuining on Part of the Defendant, Superior Court, Before Uhief Justice Vuk! #Ar MARINE NK. FORNEST VR RDWIN FORREST. TWENTY-NINTH DAY, CONCLUSION OF Mi. VAN BUREN’S BPERCH. Jaw. 21—Mr. Van Buren resumed his review of the evidence thie morning. He ssid it wa~ desirable that ‘they chould keep in their mincs the discovery of the Consvelo letter of Januery. 1849. corroborative of the one proved in December, 1349 Tbe parties, they would bear in mind, remained together trom January, 1849, to May, 1849, and then to December 1849, But Mrs, For- faid that the letter cf December ot 1849. was the first intimation received by her tac the said Edien For- xest euspectsd her chastity. That was eleven months after the discovery of the Contucio letter, which he would mow read to (hem. to show that it conveyed irrefragable evidence to any superior minded man of the guilt of Airs, Forrest But she said that votil Deoember, she had no intimation that he suspected her ip any manner on the question of her purity. ‘The effilavit was made in December, 1850. Subse e, her attention was drawn to a solemn statement mude previous to the reparution--.a stucement repelling the imputation of guilt. and, therefore, necessarily made in conrequence of that intimation beivg previouly com veyed by the person who made the statement She ua- dertook to expisin the circumstances under which that statement was mede. Hecalied attention to her af fidevit of the 24 of Decomber on the subject, because it was matter of comment; and it was said that this tured statement way Croudvlently ante-dated ortion of it was inserted at the time she sigoed thestatement. Now, they would all see how far her statement, in that respect, was sustained by the evidence in the cuse, and he reterred to folios 095, 61. He mevtion- ed the folios for the convenience of the counsel on the other side. Mr, Van Buren then readfrom Mra orreat 6 affidavit (already published in the procesdings of Slst of December.) the reference to her conversation with Mr Forrest respecting their evparation. and in which she pave bimthe strong a Tation of her innocence, which, at her suggestion, Mr Forrest diew up and she signed, Her affidavit, on this polat, concludes thu: 4 intended it to be av s:xongly worded as possible; yet my {mpreeion, and hest preceut reor!lootion and ballot, are, that ite Ianguego only rofers to, and conies levity, or mere venial reaches of decorum, and tha: it coos not contsin stocnduct, [am vontirmed in th allusions to chis pspot, neo the commer y. h to my prejudice thiazotion, and has, on bo:h oo thereof, or aby precise statement of it dog cf that poper did aot attrect muh being only connected, in my views, with Wugeested ty Mr. Forrcat, but deemed impossible Ly me, and Ucanpotremomber recurring to it, even in thougus, {rom ‘he time of eigringit until I caw ruforence to it in. an an- ‘Bwer of Mr. Forrest to my action in Uctober last (1850) Mrs Forrest wrote guid paper, and my modo of signing maxes it easy to write above my elgnature. From the ntarements in Dis efidavit, Leuspece that Je his ante-dated is. 1 deny, absolutely. that air. Forreat ever proposed to me to sake noah atiesting my innocence; on the contrary, it was my proposal to him, as above expla.ncd; and T doolare that his id effidavit bout my having suesred on signing any writing, and vion alleged im the said e Occasion of my signing jontenis, tention from int, uture evil event, , to have taken place on fuch paper, are wholly untrue, He did so for another reeson—tbe statement was BO awful in ite nature, that he hed hesitated to produce it. Bhe said—and he wished them to bearin mind while he read that statement—sho admitted that it was made after difficulties had occurred between them, and before the eeparation and, therefore, made in March. April, or Mav. The learned counsel then read a portion cf the ‘nfidarvit of Mrs. Forrest, which has before appeated in ‘eurcolumne, and continued Now, fora single instance, the states in her first affidavit of September, 1860, that ‘ever until December, 1349, cid she have the slightest intimation that he suspected the question ef her purity; then, she said that iu tbe menth ef October herattention ‘was drawn to the statemert she had made. She ten sterted en explanation os to what had been dove for bis future satisfaction, Ho denied & breach of decorum, or that her signature to the document was tumpered with Now, he would pro- duce the paper, and the jary would bear im mind ashe read it, that he regretved to be obliged to repeat thatit ans made in & sclemn manver, at her special request. (Mr. Van Buren then read the declaration of innocence maade by Mrs. Yorrest, already published ia the proceed- ngs of the Sd January, and marked No, 38] Now, they Would perceive that the suspicion that she had thrown out that scmebody baa written over her signature was wholly unrustained fhe monver in which the paper was tigned ebewed that. because there was still room, Thus mote cuspicions were thrown cut in an unusual manner. [: would be perceived thut her signature, was nome distance from the writing—so far from any attempt Deing mads to write above her signature, there was an interval. Again, alshough Lawson sa‘u it seemed to have been written at the same time, was that immate- ial, aftec bis statement, as it was made before the separation, ard mede long before December, 1549. at whic) time sbe seid she reveived the first intimation, or ever hod any information that Mr Forrest suspected her purity’ Again, in reference to that date. there was BO day—it was written prior to the time—it was simply January, 1349. Again: she said that this awful state ment, made by her, was merely a denial of infidelity when the very first statement is @ solemn declaration that she never had been unte: 1 to the marriage bed, und #0 interlined over her signature. It was one of the very first things in the paper, following the com- mencement, which obvicusly must have been in the original statement, commencing with soleinn language. Now, all those pretences which had been made by her to explain this paper, were falsified. And how fearful was the weight, when he recurred to the falsity of her ori- inal etatement that in December, 1519, she never faa apy intimation of a ruspicion of her purity! Had it not transpired in the face of it. that eleven months before that time she made that solemn statement? Did they not believe that it was or hie satisfaction when he had the Conselo letier ia his posseseion? Did they not believe that it referred to past delinquencies, and ia- dended to prevent a separation? She bud made a state. ment which. in his judgment, no virtuous woman would have wade. No virtuous wemen would have made that statement for any purpose, and, least of all, to gratify the fear of future suspicion, and to overcome the convictions of the present If, then, they looked at the fucts as the evidence showed it to them, and dismissed suspicion—{f they dismissed the remarks of counrel, and bottomed themselves on proof, how would the transaction appear in reference to the case? That be tock ber to @ house—that he her anedition of Shakespeare without sus. guilt—that bo made her an allowance of $300 a year, be- cause he knew she was an innocent woman, Taut state- nient to which he referred, could only have been made in consequence of her convictiea of her guilt. He now called attention to one of the other contradictions in this statement, because it would be necossary to advert to them heresfier, fur she azreed to keep silence in re- ard to the cause of separation, and Mr. Forcest bound Eimeeit toa similar silense He had never been heard to open his lips on the eubjest-even bis sister cid not know of it-he did not even speak of it when be went to her residence in January. 1349, and said © Lhis is my hbome—I have none other”? Le never told her the rea- gon which sepsrated him from his wife. When Lawson rested him night and day, he eaid he made no answer. Vhen Mr, Green met bim about the time of his separa tion. and raid, “Are you going to separate from your wife?” he replied, “that is true.” The», said Green, * Pray, tell me the reasons. He replied,“ No, there are sowe things between man ond wife that are sacred and ought noi to be spoken of.’ He was never heard to ‘open his lips cn the eujeot vntil December, 1819. That ‘Wasso Muck evidence of en agreement to to eo, and he followed that cour hh about that. Mr. Van Buren referred to page O2f in tho printed book, #4 foliow T never extrested or requostod Me. Forrest's silenooia re- lation toany tot or conductof mine, wor did ho ever agroc to be silent to shield me from ehamo oe euftor im eilence. I deny ail bis aliogntions in these respsots d between Me Forsest aud Lf, to occupy a8 bavor tuo enme apartment, tony: id sy icions or seandalows comments cf sorvants, or to & sonseyxence, nor i or und eon Mr. Forrest rants from the ute on the sigh y aitocwards it was neighborhood. Th was not until mo that auytoing was stion with st to me that he hat teenth of January, 1 talked cf thromgious the shout a week aftor that ti us about cur conduct in conn ‘Thon, for tho first time, Mr. Terrort # wthed the cause of our separation to be kop’ a soore! ho didnot wish ithnown that any pervon Ii is veracity: that it was no other peran feared Foe. Tramarked oud it friends. lic add ongvelo Lovtor was yat subject was mtro- 4 sitone remained silent. spelen of by Mr danced, bo made the same dT peosama, considered we ra Loving vaved, dor I auswerod pretey ‘ae Lefere. r efforts to take his nts, to take in way: him, Bhe entreated him to keep #ile Dreakfact tohim,to take in the ‘ly thing for the purpose of having en inte showed her anxiety. They would per denied ony agresmont to keep ellent in cause of separation. and x Ina letter which che the postscript, in May 1840, No. Hi, © that Forrest had made agme reveret reparation; that is a mat one, and we mutually eur. on, suv saidia a yesterday anid > to our nobappy vt discuss with any thatthe agreement betweon a? If atatel an Unqualified falseuood (n her atti regard to the terms on which they a Dr. Forrest bearing that there ard to the re rumors afoat in re- ae of separation, reflentiag uufkvorably on Smeelf, wrote (0 and reminded her of her gniit. proof of which be posrerted. Fe also reminded ber of the aclema tion ale was under to keep seoret the caine of sepa- Dow, whet did rlie ing told Laweon Of it without the slightest in anewer to that note! —after weving talked M—she Wrote to hum r, 1840, thus signing fulne emen tain regard do loutated to exon henever tra, isbly replied that would mevor by t allewoven my maeat intimate friond to interroxa.« aniject If, them, with all these ejcoumst ther f ing er Memecives on (belt minds. could they arrive at Oonclorion but that she wae a woman dewalt of br they would show @ great element npon which the!r appre Glation of the testimony in thie case would be guiied,and that she could not be believed either in common conver- tion, cr op oath. He said this with pain, but he said it with conviction, from a careful examination of the tes- timony in this case. Now, we offered to rhow the letters of ber elster, and the letters of Mrs. Voorhies to her. They were shown to her andthe counrel. and they were objectedto. He would not comment upon that fact, ex- cept by callingattention toit Me passed to a review of the charact+r of Mrs. Forrest, and there was direct tes- timony in this case, of her guilt. He would call atten- tion to her general course of life, as proved by Mrs Un- derwood. Now, Mra Underwood was an eatly companion of Mrs Forrest. She was her early friend, and an ac- quaintance of her father's, She lived with her two different times, and was in the habit of closely attendipg upon her, and among the rest, of at- tending her when’ at divine cervice. Now, he (the learned couusel) was aware that tho latter cir- cumstance was not one that necessarily sustained the truth, becaure it might be hypocrisy. People frequent ly attended divine service forthe purpose of gaining popular favor, seemed to profers ® sanctity which they did’ not possess. But, with regard to Mce. Underwood, there waa no necessity for any such agsump- tion cn her part, {t is proved that Mr. Willis slept in thebouse Wasthere # doubt that the grest strength exercised by Mr. Raymond in hooking Mre Forrest's dress, was required? Mr. Ruymond was implicated in several tranractior nd his testimony must be receiv ed asfrom one who hud every desire io exculpate him- self. Richard Willis himeelf ewore that he st: Forreet’s bouse aud set up all night. hed staid there on eix or eight other days, He did not think he staid there three continuous nights, Mr. Von Buren then proceeded to review dire. Underwoed’s evidence 2t considerable length, which he contended was Temarkebly confit med, more especially as to the manner in which rhe had It Willis out of the houre. With regard to the evidence of discharged cer- vents, he did not atteeh much importance to it, and did uot attach any value to the evidence of Robert Garvin, This witness, instead of proving the adnitery of Mr, For. rest, proves the adultery of Mrs. Voorhies and Mr. Ray- mond, Capt. Calcraft remembered dining there; he re. wembered Mrs Voorhies being there; it would be singuler if rhe were not there. Now, on cross examination it be- came necessary to ascertain whether or not he was a merried sran, and ke (Mr. V. B ) stumbled on a difficulty, (a Inugh); thet dificvlty mizht have been avolded, Independent of the testimony of Mr. Willis tl Was srother circumetance sworn to by John Kemp. and be was desirous of looking rather particularly at his tes- tony snd eecirg how tur he wes confirmed and how far he wascontradicted Kemp swore that late one evening she went to Mra, Willis’ house, aud that she passed dwn the stairs to her room without stop- Dirg to speak to any one; that she subsequently went to bed; that he aw Mr, Willis step outside Mra. Forrest's room, and heard him tay ‘Good night, my dear,” and then pasted up, The jury would bear in mind that instead of calling any person who kuew the fact, to contradict | Mr. N. P. Willis, theories had been thrown out and dia- grams of the roctun and pussages had been drawn, to | show that what he stated was not trus He swore he could not eve the door because there was something thers, He saw Willis shut the door. Now, instead of mahing diagrems and theories, how simple it wou'd have been for Mr, Witlis to have said so, if he dared to have suid ro! On comparing the evidence, it was curious to see how they contradicted exeh other. Yet none of them contradicted Kemp. He swore that, during Willis’s confinement, Mrs. Forrest continually dined with her in the back room; then snother witness sweers that, during the time ot Mrs. Willis’s coafine- rent, Mrs, Forrest never dined there at all, and wheu she said so. the counsel remarked, ‘‘ Yes, I believe that to be strictly true.” When Willis came. he said she dined there often while his wife was confined. How curiously they contradicted each ether, and how eingulerly they ecnfirmed the evidences of the witness Kemp. But there ‘was another circumstarce to which be had referred, and that was the manner in which Mr. Willis visited the house in Twenty. second street, and the manner in which he was let out. Now, he said that he visited there orce a week on en average; that he disiiked Mr. Forrest--he did not koow why he considered his ecquaiptance vulgar, and desired to avold it, He considered that Mr. Forrest's treatment of his wife Was unplearant, and disliked eceing them together. Ile did not know whether Mis. Forrest was aware of his aversion to her busband--thought not; that the reason why he was let cut in the way he was, was that be did not wish to make the ncquaiatance of Lawson. How would be make the acqueintance of Lawson by coming out? This confirmed the testimony of Mrs. Underwood as to the manner in which he was let out of the house. It had been shown. in evidence, that in Mr. Forrest's ab- eence-—-when he was out of town--Mr. Willis was seen by three persons prerent standing with his arm round Mrs. Ferrert’s waist, and eround her shoulders, for some con- siderable time. One of those persons raw him leave the room. Tbe library had two doore—a door opening into the hall; and the only door he could have seen him pase through was the door which opened into the bedroom. After ull, be (Mr. V. B.) could not see how the testimony of three witnesses could get over the evidence of John Kemp. The actual state of facts existing at the time furnished strong evidence in proof of the testimony. He pssred now fret the evidence of Mr. Willis,with the sim- ple remark that from the manne in which certain wit- eérses Were cross-examined, as to whether had seen any other member of Mr Forrest’ mily in the library —whether they knew the sister of Mrs. Forrest--andthey stated that they knew the child Virginia, a suspicioa tlashed across his (Mr, V. B.*) mind, to the effect, * You will now have uothing; we have no opportunity here.” He then preceeded to consider and examine the testi- mony of Anna Dempsey. Bhe wes submitted to a most rigorous crors-examir ation The jury would recollect that the otber ride had full notice of ber intention to be be:e—that they bad full opportunity to interrogate her cn her whole character, from childhood to the present time, and they even neglected those epportuaities Her memory bad failed her, when burriedly questioned as to bor having lived at Mr. Dickinson's. She wee then 15 years of age, and now she was 24 Bbe went to the Hovse of Refuge. Sbe was there several years, as the records of the house rhow. [The learred counec! re- ferved to the various incidents of this witness's life, which bed been brought up, and to her position of re- spectability at the present time, and asked the jury if they could impesch her testimony | The very objects of the House cf Refuge would be destroyed if all those who bad the misfortune to have been there were to have the reputation of their whole lives impugned No direct teertimony had been adduced which went to impeach her evidence. Dr. Lee had sworn that he would not be- lieve ber on her oath, unlees her character had mate- Hally improved She lived with him when she was twelve or thirteen years of age, which fact the jury would obeerve. Ii had eppeared that Anna had, on One cecasion, gone into the bedroom, and caught Captain Howard and Mrs. Forrest in bed together. Barrey McCabe presented himecif on the sand. Bar- mry MeUabe once presented bimeelf to me. Mr. O'Conor kindly ent him down to my office for inspection. (Lavghter.) My whole brsiness was to look at him (lavghter), end that baying been accomplished he left. ‘They had the testimony of Catharine Levins. who raid she had been looking for Barney one day, and not find- ing lim, she drew the inference that, the door of a room being Icoked, he was in the room with Anna. (Mr. Van Duren here read the declaration of Berney MeCabe. deny- ing thet be had any connection with Anna Dempsey, and which has been already published in the proceedings of the 9h of Janusiy | The latter putt of the declaration wee pot in eridcace, but he would turn it dewn and Lund it tothe jury to show them that Barney writes a good hand, ard that so fer as that is concerned. there is no difficulty arising out of bis being illiterate, now call the attention of the jnry to his testimony on the tand. Barney eays he belicves he had connection with Avna— be believes he hed. own opinion, continued Mr Van Boren, js that he wi ‘unk when he was on the ttend, (Lavghter) He was drunk when he was at Mr, U'Conor’s fice. He didn’t reecliect that he was drunk when be was there, but his “boss"—pretty good author- ily—told him when he got kome that he wee particularly ciovk. (Laughter) Mr. Van Buren then referred to the testimony of Barney, to show that it was utterly wertbless; but to that conclusion he suppored the jury had long since come. He referred to the letters written by Anna Dempecy to Hrs. Forrest. from the house in Mercer street. and asked what would have been estier toan for Mra Forrest (o have toll her counsel that she had veceived such letters. and for her to have taken Mr. Vcorbies or Captsin Calcraft, if she wished, to tear what Apna bad to say? Noearthly danger could have rerulicd from the interview, He did not kaow what the counrel for the plaintiff will say on the fact of the mu: lineurteins beving been placed in the window; but he (ir, Van B ) would beg of the jury to recollect that was to mee is witness face to face. Why did it not Ie would ; the simple cbject in asking Mrs, Forrest ¢o come there | occur to Mrs Forrest,“ Anna wants to charge me with | advitery with Capt Howard, T will go and meet her face to face and tell her, asT before told my husband, | it's it's lie’? Then look to the conduct of Mrs Forrest towards ber, after she was wits child by Capt. Ho He (Mr. Van Buren) confessed that that fect #trengthened bis confidence in the truth of her state- ment. Instew! of dfccurving this giti—whose Inngnage, Ca barine Levins tells them. wae unchaste aud smutty — instead of discharging this girl, who was w: than a ccu.men prostitate-for she bad slept with Barney— Mrs, Forrert keeps herin the house, Shey dida’s tell Mr. Forrest of the circumstance of her being in the fanily way bie child (Amon) remained in the houne after being In the family-way,nud whea the rest of the servants bad left, she regnained there until April; she remained there a lady boarder in the house; ehe ra- mained (here doing nothing. When the hour of her eons fineraent caine. she was seut to the country, and the testimony shows that Mies Margaret Sinclair, the sister of Mra Forrest, corresponded with her voder the assam~ ed neme of Eimencorf? She was confined ia Norwalk, ste rerpectable house; and whet was the child celled’ Berney’? No (Langhter.) Who paid the expenses? No; they were pald by Mr. Raymond and Mergoret Sinclair. W barn by this feat, was raved to @ megoiicence he could never have dreamt of Hew ed at the head of this literary cirste (Le ugiste wos th stle of the new faith. (Lenght He brought around hita aot only the seecerations, but the piensa aud weolth of the best-— the mort elerated=and the moet Hicerary im this Piiterophieal coterie, Anne ey remained in Norwalk until sbe wee tly recovered to be removed. She was sent some clothing for the baby--e merino cloak, an unveuml dresr, I should Uook, tor Barney's child The chiid was here sent to nurse, ond remained in the charce of Mra, Batier for @ year, or better, for which Anna Dempsey telly us rhe was to pay $7 8 month, that abe did pay it and that she got the money from Catha- rine Levins, (he eervant of Mra Yorrest, Mrs Butler, he Huree, tells us thet rho hereelf got sioaey, OM One oc- cation, fecen Catharine Loving et the house, Anus Demp- wey Went before @ Giagistrate and uwore buat Vagiam (geese What was then done? Did he deny it? io. Did he dare come tothe city? No; an arrange- ment wes made bd Mr. Raymond on behalf of Captain Howard and Miss Sinclair; and a part of the arrangement was that the letters written by Miss Sinclair to Anna Dempsey should be given up, and Mr. Raymond went to the steamboat when she was going to New Orleans, and ie @ portion of them from her. tir Raymond thought it would be a disadvantage to Masa Sinclair if they were not given up. If in those letters Miss Sinclair had admonished Anna of ber crime ; if she, as would have become a chorister of the churoh, bad called on her to repent in “ sackcloth and ashes ;” if these letters con- tained volumes of admonition, telling her the disgrace bad brovght upon her famil;, telling her the disgrace she bad brought upom the house where the debauching bad taken place, and telling her never to ti ress in this way again—if the letters contained all this, why did Raymond make the bargain to get the ietters back? Why did Mr Voorkies follow her to New Orleans and take the balance of the letters from her? It is extraordinary, and coks towards a theory to which I rhall Fagen refer. Appa’s child was subsequently sent to her to New Or: leans, and filteen dollars worth of clothing wasgiven for itfor that purpcre. Who paid ‘it? Parke Godwin ‘for Copt. Howard ; and thus this child was fitted out for the feoond time by Capt. Howard. through the apenas. of Parke Godwin. They afterwards took the child from New Orleans, brought it to New York; and it remained bere till Jast July, when they tell us thatitdied Now I would ask the explanation of all this, Is it that Berney got the child’?—that’s preposterous Is it that Capt. Howard got the child ?—that's preposterous, Mra. Forrest, as a virtuous woman, would have said to Capt Leward “you have disgraced my houee, and never enter it sgnin.” But what if, on the other band, Auna held within her breast the knowledge of « transaction which was to disgrace Mrs, Forrest? This was a key tothe awiel, fearful, overwhelming efforts to blast ‘the tes- timony of this child, whore history from the present time down to her remotest chi!dhood,bas been examined into. Mrs. Forrest and Capt, Howard bad hud nine months’ notice of this teetimopy. If it was false, Capt Howard chould have raid to her, ‘don't dare go on tbe stand, for if you do and cemmit a wilful and corrupt perjury against Mrs. Forreet and myeeit, I will prorsente you, I wili send you te the Btate pricon.”’ Why, the only wit- nese who could contradict Anna Dempsey, is gone to the Sevdwich Islands. He don’t dare to come into the city. What axe you to infer from this but that the etrongest inferences of the law are agalnst him? But ecuin, where is Mre. Voorh{es, who Mra. Ferrest states, stood by her all through ? Why does she etert now, without anyjapparent object. except to go foltnly? With the present facilities for crossing the Atinntic, ehe could have been brougt here twice while this tial bas been going on, Where is Voorhies, who tock the letters from Anna Dempsey? Where is Parke Godwin—a witness who was really here. but iano ¥ gone? ‘Thus, we bave found her paramours, as we say, her sister, sche emits, allebsent, Where ere they’ And why is Masrechusetts ransacked tor Dickinsona! Norwalk for the Whites. the Curzons? Why is Doty put upon the etand? Why the prostitutes put uponthe stand? Why ell these witnesses, with this immense outlay of money, while those who really knew about the cose have kept away? Tell we why it is that a simple woman, es if by magic, drives them all eawey—Howard to the Sandwich Islands—God- wia to Europe—Voorhies to Europe. Because she hoids w'thin her a truth which can destroy the whole of tbem, and they don’t dare to confront her. 1 have dwelt upon her testimony, because I believe her whole ttatement bears upon it the impress of teuth; comes here to testify when those who should hi by her have left her. veut; the father of her natural child beeomes un- patural; thoee who paid her for the support of her child—all abandon her; but I trust that when the counsel comes to sum up onthe other side, he will not forget that she is the “ Flowers’ of his ‘ Forrest,” erd not of miae, (Laughter.) Mr. Van Buren, in fur- ther ellusion to this witness, remarked that sho was the wife of a reepeetabie man, holding a respectable situa- ve stood Howard was the father of her child and thresten:d to | nd she | She fs alone; her father is ab- | tion; and, with a courage about her which apprcaches | the rublime, she came here, with her husband's ranctic bat. in justice te the defendant, to detail those fects with which she bad become acquainted. 1 pass now to the consideration of the onl} cbarge to which I think it necessary to callyour atten- tion, atd have to render my acknowledgments for the kindners with which you have attended to my remarks. !n enbmitting the whole matter to you, I know that L have been thus far, as you were aware { must have been, necessarily tedious, in detailing the long and protracted examination of testimony. I appreciate the fact that you have been not only taken from your ordinary business, but have been confined to this court house, for daysond weeks,and [can only promise that what [ have to add. will not osoupy much more of your time. The charge which, in my judgment, is the most serious ageinst Mrs, Forrest, is. that in respect to which the testimony, with a single exception, is entirely uncon- tradioted and is that of her adultery with Mr. Jamieson, and that rests, in the first place, on the testimony of Mr. Smith, and te the manner in which he describes the cir- cumstances under which the parties were, when Mr. Forrest came suddenly into the room, and as this is in sinking contrest with the evidence of Mrs Forrest. / moy be pe:mitted once more to call your attention to her statement and show you how distinotly she is contradicte ! by the testimony of Mr. Smith in respect to this matter. rv. Van Buren here read extracts from the affidavit of Mrs. Forrest, in respect to her intimacy with Mr. Jamie son. commencing at folio 686, and contrasted her state- mente with LLore of Mr, Amith on the same subject ; the substance of Mr. Bmith’s evidence, received through a cr mmission, wae published on 284 December. Mr. Van Buren ccptinued—this is the testimony then distinct evcugh to contradict Mre Forrest in respect to the at- terdant circu stances of Mr. Forrest's discovery of their sition on this cccarion. Now. I call to your recollection the testimony introduced, an4 the suggestions m: we proposed to show the letter from Mr. Jai Mis, Ferrest, written about that time. You will recol- lect the violent struggle which was made to keep that letter cut of this care. You will recollect that our at- tempt was resisted at every step of the proceedings, and for weeks we were endeavoring to introduce that letter in evidence, and we were continually met by suggestions on | the cther eide—that whether Mrs. F had received the letter trom Mr. Jamieson—whether she had receiv: letter at all, very likely referring to the Consuelo lett there was no evidence—that there was no identification of the precise letter offered in evidence—on the contrary, they wanted to lead to the impression that there wasacon- fpiracy set on fect between Mr, Forrest and Jamieson for the purpose of inducing the latter to write another letter differing frem the origipal one given to Mr.F. by him, and which might convict her of guilt,whereas the originalletter might be entirely innocent. ‘This suggestion of ours was met with statements, and evidence, and ciroum- stances which bad come to their knowledge authorizing the conciusion that Mr. Forrest had entered into a con- spiracy to procure admissions from Jamieson of the 8 pal publication; and it was in this connection, and bi ing upon this subject, that the testimony of Mr. Forney Was introduced. It is proper that, in this connection, L ebeuld call your attention to that letter of Mr. Jamie- 20u's. for two purposes. Inthe fiest place, you will see hew far this letter may be supposed to be authorized by Mrs, Forrest, and then how far it bears upon the ques- a which you have to try, The only interrogstions on es subject, of any materiality, is with respect to the letter written by Mr. Forney to Mr. George Roberts, of the Boston Times. Counsel read this letter—pubjished the pregrers of the case—commenting on it, to show thet, thengh Mr. Forreet was cognizant of ite being ed faste therein mentioned, yet, from other inconsistent details, it was evident he had not seen it written Whatever may be said in re. gard to the prudence of this letter, no man acquainted With Mr, Forney would hesitate to believe the precite object which he desired to attain, and the one to which he vertities; he bad no earthly doubt, he reys, in respect to the guilt of Mrs, Forrest. and he had no doubt that Jemicson would not hesitate to make a declaration to that eflect, im familiar conversation, and he stetes that ¢o far from entering on any dishonest or improper object of his Cwn motion, his object was an honorable one, aud he supposed that he was attainin and accomplkhing it by honorable means, and, ho weve unwire or wise this courte of obtaining proof of Mrs F°s guilt may have been, there is no partiele of authority t) preve there will not be a euggestion on the other side— not an argument to show thata single thing was eve doue in complionce with this suggestion, by Mr. Roberts except to send a copy of the letter, or procure it to b ant directly to Mrs, Forrest and to her counsel, thiukins be would show to them that in tbe first place there wa a dishonvrable proposition made to him,and that it was amatter of grest glory to him to have such a dishonor. able proporsl made to him, and, iv the next place, to thow how honorable it was io him to betray the con- fidence reposed in him. How be expected to appear to | the most ndrapiage by bis participation in the matter, ; Tem at a loss to conceive. Mr, Forney, tresting it as an honorable purpose, wrote to Mr Roberts, who treated it os dishonorable, But itis evfficient to say that it neither procured any admission from Jamieson, nor was any attempt made to procure euch from him ; bat long besore this letter, which haa been the subject cf com- ment in thi case, was in Myre, Forrest's possursion With there remarks, I proceed to call your atieation to that ‘etter, the genuineness of which has not been dis- ‘The fect that it was delivered to Mrs. Forrest before the time of her engagement of Jamieson to make # vitit—that it was delivered to Mra. Forrest before Mr. F ‘stetury to Cincinnati—delivered to her while he was ow his way to ittsburg, where he remained for two or re weeks, and the d fiiculty sworn to by Mr Smith, the fot that the sudden retreat of Jamicson alluded to wee two or three weeks after the receipt of that letter, wren iconoeded And let us now look fora moment this letter to see the evidence which it contains of the ceclarations of love and affection, not only of Jamieson towerds Mre, Forrest, but of Mrs Forrest (o Jamieson :— And pow, ewes cat Consuelo, eur brief droem is over, and veh w dream! Wo not known real bios? have we not realred what ve to red up AB Aw ideal state, giving ente to theit imagination, soxtce Lelieving in ite rs Have we not oxporignoed tho truth that cestssy is nob Thave, and as I will not permit m hi Acd oh! what ai t 1 have ma h einbrance of 18 may lig Yes, our li + KreMt account ua in the fac Lot us pervge ite fentur d rend as 1 end you will find our dre: Dilly teks from wa when @ho rates and exiles us from ench other? Can ivide our souls—our epirite? Can tongue or rumor’s trumpet cummon wa toa paricy ougelves, whore to doubt each other we should hold 1 No! no! a dowds of thee can no mors Sad bar. to be the nob all adioam " Cag foul io g You will find ao teat tro: which @0 digo bs of a Now, gentipuaea, tt (hls letter opatalacd @ aim pie deco It of his wife, which were rot contained in the origi- | not only to vindicate her own character, | remaining | | eure for the intimacy i'self it is diMoult to imagine. If | painful, will not bo unondurad]. | ration of admiration--if it contained a declaration of the ‘™ ost romantic attacbment—if it contained declarations of culpable love on the part of Jamieson to Mrs. For rest, by itself it is a communication which any virtuous woman is subject to have made to Ler, in writing or it speech ; and it is the manner ~the manner Cn of eenting it, which is the subject of remark; but whens perty goes further, and refers to the declaration which Mrs Forrest made to him, then he is either speaking truth or is speaking falsehood But you have told me (and oh! what music did eroste upon mi aratoful cer) that you woald aos doubt me, Had she told him so? [f she had not, he was sendin: to her, in recret for her own personal inspection, withou design, or even fear that any other human being would see it, awilful and gross falrehood. Low absurd to imagine a cecret, confident communication of a lie, to the only person who knew it to be a lie; and what would be, whet should be the insiant answer of a virtuous wom: to this, ifsuch an inconceivable ocourrence should take lace ’ It would be “the man is crazy, the man is mad. ¢ forgots himself, he is misrepresenting me, by impto- petty deecribirg meas making avowals of love to hia, end reminding me of the musi: which they made on ‘his grateful ear,’ while no such thingoccurred; he might compromise nie ‘Leyond measure by thia act." Such id be the thoughts aud answer of a virtuous woman. With these considerations, di ear: it, OF tion, though if, a sombre hour ou, banish it hy knowing there is Et ould intrude itcelf upon one who ia whispering to himecif. Consuelo. Consuelo! What was the courolation to whisper of what reflected on their past intercourse? What was this past intercourse? A deoluration of love and attachment on his part reciprocated by the most undoubted expreestons of coriidence on hers, and by the recollection of this she war to console herrelf during his abeence ‘There is another potent reason why you should bo happy— that is, having been the means of another's happiness, tor I am harpy, and with you to remorber, and the blisaft! au ticipation of eecing you sain, shall remain go I wish I could tell you my happiness No worda have boon vat invented that would convoy m of the depth of that compored of pride, admiration, wo, gratitude, ard love, wi tT feel for rs me you ara hsp) lieve Not worthy of wi her—not worthy to be admired by her—but woithy of What be povseseed, and which he was struggling to ee i Py. chat ome that I shati do the urmont (o be worthy of your d now, God bleea you. # thousand lines, my own. my altar. 1 would say more, hut must stow away my ebgede and tinsel patches, Oh! how hideous they look after thinking of you! "+ He would say more! God kuows what he could any more to throw any light on this case. 1 do uot know why Mr, Forney should write to anybody to talk to his on the subject, drunk or sober, while Mr. Forrest had this communication in bis possession ;-— Adieu! adieu! and when thou ort gone hall bo made up alone CO! cating beck, with f2ney's ohazin ‘Thore haloyen hours when in my arta Ciasped Conauels ! When we ceme to speak ef ndmiratio scems to reduce the edmiration to the level of under- tlandings of ihe meanest capecity. However retined, intellectual, avd literary people may ba, it seems that the mede in which they make love resembles that of ordinary mortals :— Adiou! adieu! Bo thine each joy ‘That earth oan yield, without alloy, Shall bo the earnest, constant prayce Of iim who in his heart shal weae Beet Consurlo. Adieu! adiou! When noxs we meat, Will not all eadness thon retre And yield the conquered timo to bliss, And coal the trivmph with a kios— Bay, Ci elo y What did sbe aay to this? this remark ad init 01 is? That letter was ree by Mrs. Forreat tefore she went to Pittsburg she was remiuded cf her declaration ot love, in past, to this man. Bhe wes begyed of to write to him and tell bim she was happy. She was inquired of whether, when she returned, and they met again, their triumph would be seuled with a kiss. Now,when you ocme to declarations of love—when you come to avowals of confidence—when you come to ciaeping people in your arms, and sealing meetings by a kiss, you come to what . with crdinazy mortals. is regarded as the evidence of adultery, and but one thing more cen have been possibly proved by us, and I submit, with yroat respect to you, that even that letter---even that alone---unless accom: Veil by rome declaration of it from Mrs. Forrest to her osbani.is sufficient to stamp the guilt of the party. You canpotclore your understanding to the inferences inevit- able to this declaration; they tand out 90 transparently on ite face that I should be guilty of injustice to you and offering an insult to your inteiligence. in commenting cenit. If Mrs Forreathad instantly handed this letter to Mr. Forrest. and bad said to him. “ sir, this man is crazy, writing to me of interviews which never took place, representing me as makivg avowals of indecent love to bim, reminding me of the attachment I bear him he man is evidently crazy, do not take any notice 0 This is whata virtnour woman would have done nt what was Mrs, Forrent's course? She concealed i from her husband; kept up the eame intimacy, or even gieeter. with this man, afterwards, than she did before. | She «veers to this in her affidavit, and it does not reat onany testimony which was introduced by us (Mr Yen Buren then read portions of Mrs. Vor test's affidavit, with reference to her connection with Mr. Jamieson snd the Consuclo letter, the whole o which bas been heretofore published.) She s2ye she had cnce expressed sufficient censure of the Consuelo let but veare left to the power of divination to imagi whet she regerded as suflicient censure of it. I sup- pore, as we buve but one rule to judge of what we do not know--that is, by what we do know—I suppose she made the came reply to this (if the case admitted of it) ax Annu Flowere said she did to her, when sbe told Mra Forrest of Captein IHemerd’s connection with he © Why. id ehe, “Anna. it’s a shame, and when I re im again I will give him a good scolding.” This mey ve bec, in her judgment, a sufficient censure for the ¢, What ehe would have deemed # suflictent cen- off you believe the statement to be true, she participated in this intimacy, and did not permit their friendship to be interrupted by this letter. Now, on the other hand, if you believe the statement of Mrs Underwood as to the manner in which the letter was discovered, and her con- duct at the time of missing it, then her entire account of it, bed ee it actuslly is, is far short of the truth in respect to this affair, Mrs. Underwood says that Mrs, Forrest went to the drawer, and found thst this letter was misiog. She ‘immediately sterted and seid, “Sister Katten, sister Katten, what a fool you have been!” That she had kept the letter con- cealed, she admits. She kept it from May, 1348. to Jenuary, 1849, when he discovered it. Mrs Underwood's testimony shows that when she went to the drawer and discovered thatit was gone, she spoke of it being mirsing, and went to a drawer at the other side, at the head ofthe bed, and opened it, and took cut letters, and said, “I am giad he didn’t find these kttere ’ and there she burned. Bhe evubsequently rid to Mrs, Underwood, “Mr. Forrest in determined toreparate from me: I nover saw him #0 sericus in his life,’ and she then stated the discovery of this letter. Now, gentlemen, I do not know what dence may be required. in ae ordinary cwse, to prove the commission of adultery between two parties; bat it oa to be utterly Incredible that. with this letter in evidence, and these facts admitted, if Mr Jamieson fails to appear, (as othev persons, who shonld be examined in (his caure, bave alro tailed to appear in some instances.) «the only one who could explain this transaction who 18 chown to be. cr offered to be shown to be living, when he cculd ecme ont tand and deny the adulterousin ue; and set.in view of all this. these avowalaot love ting the lettercon- » View of her preserving and te taining them..-in view of her erwards enterts ing end receiving the mon who bad written i and keeping up the seme intimacy with him, writing all the while most ffectionate end enthusiastic | letters (o her huaband, regretting his absence— If, I say, the man who could explain ali this faiis to appear on the rtand, fails to present himvelf asa witness todeny e truth ofthese statements or ex, them if the cese admits ef explanation.--how is it porsthle=E put it | te you with great respect—how ia it possible to evoid | the inferences which these facts inevitably force on the mind, of the auilt of the party? But, gentlemen, we are not teft entirely to inference on this subject; and lnow call your attencion to the testimony furnished by some letters written to Mra. Forrest by Mr Forrest, and her replies; and, before doing so, it seems to be proper to read the explanation of this correspondence, because her explanation of all these matters is worthy ef being understood by you es you proceod with the co efthecare (Mr, Vai Buren read that port Forrest's affidavit wherein she rays that Mr. Forrest | tried to extort from her a confersion of ou!pability. as well os his letter of 24th of December, 1849, ners of {ho seine dete in reply, and hers of the 29ti ot December= | ell beretofore published; and by comparing parvages ia there documents endeavored to show that ‘ire, F 'satate ment, wherein she alleges he had newer charged her with infld: lity till the date of that letter déth,wee untrue.) Mr, | Van Buren proceeded=I have thus gentleuien, called your attenticn fo the ecrrespondence between these par- ties avd the evidence which, inmy judgment, 1( affords of the guilt of Mrs Forrest=the fact that it produced the fame imprecsion on Mr. Forrest's mitra as tt must pro duce oo yourt—Ctbat be charged her on the 2ith of De- crmber With guilt, when she omitted to deny ft, and tbat sulerquently, by way cf after thought, made this statement to whieh L have referred, Ihave thus gone through with the evide in this case, imperfectly, ae! sm ay are, and wish now, before cloring my rewarke. aad thanking you for the care and attention which you have bestowed On them, te call your atteotton to some of the | and the responsibility of this error eettied this enouity on his wife, od he did not wish provided she euft-red bim to be unmolested and did aot murevresent biser nduct. and pet be bed earned bys life of industry and ta dieeioar the reasore which impelied bim to this atep to you, af I did at the outert. that while we bad that na- turel reluctance and besitation in enlling servants to testify as to the gonerel conduct of Mrs Forrest, we | knew alwrye that this could bem on the etand the lenge (hose who knew tha’ there statements of servants as to der habit: life a tothe hours rhe mept. the parties shom rhe entertained the mem whomerhe had visiting | ber iv the ebrence of ber buchand. ppd a4 to the eherace of wemen themerives from the house, to prove that all this war mismpprehenrion om the partof the ser | vYants Aad what is the testimony to this effect > With two pingie excestions, where are the ladies whore names were vsed in oo ton hh this cae, (mush, ft imagine, to their regret.) who wre named o* vieiting et the house op one or two different oeessions’ They are retested to just oan ipferenee that the house war by reeprotabie p- with Dire, Forrest They would know these ealumnies tobe uptruc Mra. Godwin explained the reason why | she did not visit ber=there was illoes im ber £ Mr. bryunt is under the tmpreation that his wire. one cecamion ited Mre Fortest There i# some tent mony to show that one or two other p visit her; but this is not the thing we wantls her vieitcrs to explaim how the house war kept —toceme forwerd end say that Mrs. Underwood did them iz justion—that Garvin did them inyastios wanted them, in point of fact, to derortbe the interior of the establishment, a dercriptton of whieh was givea to us by the servants. Mrs Underwood is comteadicted by Virginia, who swears that she did not oateh Mes | ader nt her going iato the room ernticman wer, Bat if Virginie coud not recollect the fact of her aitting in the library with Richard Willis one evening, which he bim- | sclf adimita, it is not at al! strazge that he forget the circumstance of pulling Mrs by the gown. Byer rince this controversy commenced, the plsintiff bas reprerented her Jone and urprotected femele; she never bas portunity p in making aida | counsel, im arguing the case, without referriug to this frst if asn (Mr. Ven Buren reed portions of ber afiderit) Now what ia the occasion (hat she was thus dependeut’ éhe had a fatber here, apd the bad got Mr, Lawson to rend him Cut of the country, and reterved her thanks to hima | for that act of kinduera on hit part, and the man. | n which he bed accomplished it; aud it is | entivcly fa r her to turn then upon there circumstances, and claim that + é no bes made her f to Dame us been now ber mort intimate frteusls" men with whom, aa t cloves, she bed t! 2 most iotim: Where sre (hey no’ Why, the first and mort intimate frierd was Andrew Stevens ; lettecs have beew produced here ehowing that an intimacy has been kept up between a pendent. Again, where ba Where have been t them long after the aeparaticn; net of the usuai charac. ter, but of the closest and mort sadly pature. (Joua- fel read one of the letters writveu by to Mr. Bue | vene) Here ehe requests the loon of money from Mr Stevens, It is not urual for ladies to bortow money frem gentiunen--to write to him es her dear friend, and ofler to reyay it Ayain, there is another note intra | duecd, in whicb she asks Mr. Stevens to calle but it is the social qualities of Bte and the satisfaction which che derived from the ple re of his company, | subtequently to her seperation. to which I wish to call attention, (Reads note wherein Mra ¥ refers to i knack” Mr, S bad of anticipaung her wiches) Whst has been ber intimacy with Mr. ¢, Visiting thare ecntinuelly’? What has been her intimacy with Mr. Lawson. when she says that Laweon is the only wan iu whem the could rely, as being the early friend of her father, in May, 1819, ts write to her father and break to him the intelligence of the separatios bis knowledge of all the parties, and his kia ners wade hira the meet sail perton to do it’! Who was also the man to whom the confided to setth her altowance andthe amcunt of it? What has become of Mr. Bryant?) Mr. Bryent was the friond who advised with her He isthe father of Mrs Godwin and the hus- band of Mrs. Bryant, and had advised hor what to ¢o in | the matter—hed acted throughout as her friend—hed communicated with Mr. O'Conor. He (Mr. Bryant) has not visited her for two years, or for # year aud a half. Now. how is this? Tell me, if you please, what has left her without @ single male companion, all around her are persons who were her mort intimate friends, and with whom she cherished these confidential relatior Why is it,and to what cause is it owing, that no person, however intimete be may have been with her here- tofore, can retain his intimecy with her’ But, whether it is absence, negotiation, business, other acsociations, whatever it may be. they are pot now withber. She has caured diMeultiea to arise between these geatlemen, in every relation of life,in every intercourse with Ler; | and then she repreronts herself ax # person without auy | elo protector or companion, I have thus, gentlemen, | verted to these things, as it bas been thought proper | I should present to you the facts in the case. My own desire was that my arscciate shoula do #0, and I would very much prefer that you should hear | hie melodious voice, his vivid fanoies, his cogent reacon- | ing hisapt languege, enforced by graoeful delivery; but be and my clicnt insisted that this case should be pre- verted by myrelf.in my rude and unpolished manner, | 3 with them. I have, however, endeavored to present the case to you in my humble way. Ibaveendeavored to tmagine whut will be said on the other ride; but Ido not know, aod | om net now eble to imagine, what Is to be said by them in reepect to these charges, Lhave been for many years Cf my life engaged ae a public person, and | do not re- collect, op any important trial, that the defendant failed ‘e conspiracy on the part of the public proseou conspiracy on the part of the complainant is the 1 defence tu orimipat cares; and universal is hat sush ground may be as- tured in this case; but es 1 bave seen one link of thir covapiracy atter another fall to the ground=the con- spiracy to get a letter from Jamieson tuiling through the preductien of the original letter--the conspiracy to get Mre. arest to Mercer street, end entrep her into some aémission, failing by ber declining to go—the con: tpimncy to destrey and degrade her in this way, ‘Luked and overthrown by ol the circumstances abeut which it must bang—the declaration that vast eumsof money bave been expended in this case to procure evidence to convict her, and a conspiracy to precure testimony which could not be relied oa, over- thrown by the production of testimeny which we have a right to rely upon—I have doubted whether those who brevght Barney McCabe upen the etand—whether thone who brought Doty upon the stand—would have the cou iter the failure of all their attempts, to endeavor to sorspiracy on our part—to charge us with these ects to conspire to do—what ? To rhow a conspiracy by ® an jn the midst of happmese, in che prime of i i A (he poscertion of an adequate fortune, atthe head of a reeptotable profession, doving upon his wife up to Decem- ber, 1848, for nine consecutive years—a couspiracy, i mit be argued, by means of corrupt testimony, to de- erede end destroy her character, tc blast ber tame aud ive the relations under v y, to break up the boms which he deserited with such fond aflection in the letters which he wrote to his wife—aod this, too, by means of corruption and perjury! Why, L would net have suppored that, under circumstances like Uhcee, there would be courage enough on the part of the public prosecutor to continue such a case. Gea- {lanen, while it is not entirely proper or urual for coun- sel to intrude their own personal prepossessions into a but without my participatirg in it. very sorry to believe that respectable counsel could try © #rcne Uhemerlves Inte the supporition that I could rave Leen in apy way, directly or indirectly, a party to yotting en the stand a witness in whore truth [ had not Ure covtidence, and in respect to whom I was not riectly satisfied that there was no improper efforts to produce him. There is about cbis case mush which ought to be remarked. It is undoubtedly true het, ongoing over (he mare of testimony, I may have neglected muen Which Cught to have been made the ubject of pi tk by me, bearing distantly on the ireue well aware, which I have pr bia ence. There « erent in re you, by the great extent to -oted the remarks I have madein | ons why I feel a peculiar in. 4 1 bave not had the pleasure of any » with the defendant in this pal until (his coetroversy arore, and I was called te U professionally, but through the whole contro- wherever I have bad occasion to speak to hia on object orto consult with him, I have found him eo H 4. deevly wronged, in this matter. Te the cirevmatances of this case everything to show ihe impression made upon him by hit miafor- 1s the most rericus impression which has been crccud be made on eny of those who are involved in the consequent dwesters. Tis household was bis idol; be locked forward to hie return to it with the gre anxiety) He built up for himseit in his profession » been wron general subjects connected with the care, and among the i the fact that tbe silence of | i vet to the charge for feu or eleven | months alter he b: me ton knowledge of guilt | ina eng tance, and for n considerable t we he | bad son to suspect her, is urged improperly | tgeiuet Lim as en ey the absence of truth in | what he now charges—the mony loecality and kind ness which he extended to het in sh 4 her from | fiame while he bad th & his posession which you WH sey wor melurive, Not a man in that jury box if he el dsuch a letter written to his | wile, and kepé } r that lenwth of tizae, vho would not sey that Lifactory evidence of her guilt it furniehed nts, grcands of euapiciva such es would require fall explanation, And yet that know: Mr Fovreat bad as carly as Janmary, 1849 With this edge, but without the conviction that his wife Dnitted ary other offence, he wae willing that this neie act Of gulit—providing no xttempt was made to reflect upon bin after separatiog—shonld not be ased entire dikgrace Ap abundant, libe- pad, generour Mlowasoe War made to her by him, of 61,500 per year, Which, contrasted with the prootagiven a4 tobis property, shows that it was quite our-half of bis ontire income. Bo fag aa the testimoay im this case goose, be reputation unequalied in thit country wuquestioned the character | | em conreious of noruch feelin | to Grunalg till this tierniog, wh was atten urverthelers he ix lively and cheerful, but expresees great curprive at the administration of the laws of thie country. He mays be cannot see how the jury could have cony all eiroumstantisl—bad he been in France, or his owe cou euch noon, and there was a weeful the weinan seated on the pri gtief at the nenr rpproach of (be fatal day,whon the inther of her cbiidren, and one wh: bY wil she holds deat onvarth, ir to be taken from her, amd scene was tenible to lock upon.-the prisoner w. parently che he gine the ecege exbh reripiion they ure teo terrible, nnd too tr were choven President, Geo. dent. Dan} 8. Appleton; Cor Tghoultbe | ® Jalil boatmen who resened the three Fort Columbus, were Willi Hoover aad James Kack- ford. Biverat Pensons Beverrry Pescaro my an Eeriomow 62 Mulberry street; and 2 female pom fon, whore re realued, yesterday afternocn im conerquence of the ex- ratus in th u(t bave already, as I am) 4 Few. w ly kind imple in all hie tastes and feelings, fo perteotly frank and co religiously regardfal of truth jn cord lowny statement he might make, thatit hue Ic preduced cn me the strongest conviction that he has 4 LD. oS PRICE TWO CENTS. | he manifested to ben,c0t regretted that be was forced te reparate from ber hen the contro’ arose whiot> was to destroy hia domestic peace and to rive bis heagth- tower be wa to me alweys ao in he exertions I eculd command. to tee justice done to hig in respect te thixcontroversy. He wked juatice—be never has ached from apy jury morethan that {1b peculiar fact of the prejudice which certain cliques © within their power to exert, and whish mez induce thew to lok honest air of him who scorps such frivolity S00 egeinet such frivelity, puch sentimentality; amd have always fell it my duty to caution you against thie feclieg and that being done L never expected any dif- Hevlty im referewee to thie caso. Bu tlemen Tam te be 1 ilowed by @ counsel of acutencs 1 be utterly unabis to owed by the Court, perhaps ® Tobe old entic'pate it jury bow, the sounds of my voice will tw from your ears, and, I fear. niso the argurue Lew dio you will have passed from ye thee r J hear perhaps, the discourse addressed to you by wr ; bat I simply ask you to b 1 cote to bear ip 1 frirndly court, thongh. Ged knows, I do not ses why Long, long before you — to the died a) othe re id Lo thore wiver and )OUF O#R Pature aF A reeollecten which may enable you: Le decide om this care justly and teonsiy, and them wil, be entirely content With (he s rdict wach you shall vender Tt beim bus sedre oMr Van Buren closed 1 Wo tho Conrt hat 2 omence summing wp id defer woing 0 til mere nn wurt ace pied Je --You emitted to notice, Mr Van Bures, one joestion wbiel the jury have to paso wpou--that of | alimeny Do you wish bo present it to them * Mr van » vir, Ido mot purpose to may amge thing op that eubject Jvtge Onkley—1 ought to have remarkod. perhaps, em ca whic upting { taking « mel notice of what is said by connnel; but I do per Understood the Chserration of counsel, at his clore, about the « + meant lo be tertation for © and what vec e wit being wnfriend y i don't know pr di by that. itive ve sneel te Male under om there conld be for making tton the re of this trial, 1 conless mysell encirely uncom. Mr Van Borea—I regret very much te hear the conrt te thet I enid anything to ettract attention on the {the court Idit not aut > be made on it yo It worn remark caleniated to at y he court, but of ail other at sa Buren—I very much regret it Ookicy—lem net very particular about thane n ase they de aot wilve! me p din any renee; by the anme time ef the legitime of cowneel bo nay court was fn the slightest de ndly Cortaialy, & gentionan will be fatiefsd bereafier Mr \an Horn=Tbops the court knows me too well, and that E knew the court toc J Oekley— Brough on the subject, air J te 10 Vcioek this ore umming op foe OTTO Gi UNG, THE > TO THE CONDEMNED Rev. A. Verrea, Kector of the French eharch ia Franklin atreet, at a late hour last might received @ telegraphic despatch from Gov Hunt, informing him thet a reepite of cne week had been granted to Otto Grunstge who is under sentence of death amd who was te have been executed to-morrow tor the morder of his wife, by poison, of which*he was convicted a few woeks sinee. Bleps were immediately taken by the reverend gemtie- man to inform the condemned man of the interforemee on his behalf, of the I xeon i Verren calied ot the City Prison; but in consequ of the lateness af the hour, Mr, Edmonds, the keeper, aod his clerks, were awsy, and the office cloned, thereby rendering it im- porsible for the news of the respite to be communicated Mr. Verren wilt visit the unhappy man in bisceil, and reveaito him the of proceedings. terday we visited the do Sheriff Corny. On open’ oncr was sitting at a emall tabie, writing dintely arore from bis eeat with a sulle, and be eagerly abe others sent by the Land. [ie wa asked by the Bheriff how he felt, when he langhingly replied, by placing hie band om his left side, saying that bis besrt pood—he did not fear enything He said Mr Clinton, the counslior, had bis matter tm A would’ porsibiy de > him. Th stunate man is about thirty years of age, @ Prusian by birth, aod = mechinest by trade. Hele quite @ good leoking meu, dark ecmnplexion and dark eyes, and very pleasent in bis manners | but he does mot Ly eny means appear to reclize his awful position. The Nev. Mr Verren, of the French Protestamt church in Franklin street wis on hi at t Cath wted, but he declined to receive that religion, end heoce Mr Verrem horen. In fact, tte prisoner pays very little n te ministerial comsort, in soy wag. Tso vee ite unme- His evuntevence lighted up kK the Sher aed ted bim on such evidence—nothing positive, but y, he would not have been five days in prion om testimony. The unfortunate woman who was engaged to be married to the prieoner, prior to the death of hia wite, is still true to him. It is worthy of wdmira- tion to witness that poor woman tredging to the am through ail weather, however inclement, with « Dar, in one band, containing bis diener, sod in her arms am infent bey ofenly fifteen month, and again withiee wenth of her eaeccouchement. Thus this finish woman bastoiled for months past, during the prisoner's ipearceration, We looked the cell yesterday after- ture, indeed, to behold— ers bunk, robbing with -to her perbaps--t# ufier the death of # felon on the gallows. Truly the ful; the inpocent bebe which he held arte, which he kissed and 1, Kiss would be would look up, and pr looked op both with her eyes dim ar toray,O, cruel fate, why hast thou piace nding position’ Ab! readers, you cannot ime- din the culprit cell by mere wible to desertbe such realities; It is timp Men ens ocin v11¥ Linnany.-At the annual election of thia n, on Tuesday eveving, the folowing oMcese kham; Vice Preat- ing Seoretary, Wilk care in their own personal character, I may be per- t pone mF pitted to any, in rerpect to the case, thateuch hae been | etd L. Felt; Recording Secretary, Chas O Miohardsom nection with it, it is impossible that such a Treeewer, Abram Haley, jr ; Directors James D Saith, could have occurred, not only without my knowl | Wm. Howe, Joseph Blick, Cyrur Clark, J. W. Harttey, U.E. Gdel, and J.B. Halsted. Ti, Writenats, Boat stex.--The amen of the White. you:bhe oppesite ohn Doyee, of Brooklyn; Joho Uawigan, residing at aM jetta The a cien 64 a steam boilor atteched to & 14 Albambta, two former, bet é onveyed to the New York I hey now lie in @ very precarious condition he premizes were much shattered by the explosion, Bricioe.— Yesterday morning. about six o'elook. a Ger- » Holt, wenty Lhree years, wer overed. by & servant girl, hanging by the neok, im No. 68 Greenwich street, ia the attic rte as was held by Alderman Moore, of the list ward, tnd # verdict returned of “suicide by haxging -The Roberteon Guards. Captale ft Murtany Panane.- r, Fecompi dod on Tuctday They presented a fine appearence w Marine Affairs pt, Alea, of the brig Oy- Avert 1 Cacastery av Bra Prers, arrived here from Liverpool, reports that whew {twelve days out,it blowing s gale from W. 8. W., low forcroast, eplit eaila, and rece ‘weasel labored heavily, wileh caused ber to leak eo thet d other daw ‘The sud undieputed. He bad a wife whose apility, whose Appes ei whose accomplishmen he might well the pumps bad to be kept constantly going for thirty. abe pide in. He had w home which had been glx hours, During the passage, seventorn of the pussem mede to ber fancy—which was erected to meet her ovens iwoct the crew died of sbi views Abstracted aa I was by this fuunitiar spirit, I feel | Ft14.4h1 1m 000 the exen died of sbip feveg. Atuee the ‘omartk extracted from eed him firet r boy: I fys have felt d Mr Fawsor. At (he kon this robject vere only five ome Dary rebmeR leit Lo duty of (he Vesel, wae Te WO°R UWE With iatigue and want of food Captaia lop hed & signal of Cistress fying thive days, whee paces eee . Ley w eved by ark F from Leagan: meet sored 1 tnd my entire happivess provivated an bo Bostca he Cyp had « puol oa board four My God! what a thtog 1 is that the happiness ofa 7 ‘ ae bumen being shonld be entirely dependent oo one pert. Try, fre as Pioseyn, commanded by Capt. Ase fon!” ‘That this family should be e-parated, that their | Bids bow res’y for cea. and will teawe for Obsrree hecpinese sheuld be distopred that be must, infact be | probabiy tr tey ‘The P. baw moet handsome and come a varderecsas he bar been from that time to this: that | plete ac iene for nll classes of passengers, and he «bould be eubstential!y without a home, who had had | will no be fied te ber utmost capactty, Bde is fo much comfort and such esjoyments; that he should | @ partion strun d thorovga bull veel, as she lave to oecupy @ room in & mother’s hous*, or an enrhoute at Fonthill, who ha: been Living in thove ecmforte which he eo ably earaed avd 60 Well deserved, this thought bas always, through the | entire course of the controversy, followed ine, and caured | me to take the deopest interest in the oc ntroveray itself. Nay more, [have even the idolstry with whiob he regarded hie wife, (he (ond sdmiration which, on ali covesions 1, or « bedroom im hia | proved to be on be ecoom plished the journe starting @ corrw—w thing but seldema accomplished by re go Wo Liverpoot; he and back without even Rew steemabipe. Fou Caciyousia. —Tho stoamabips Daniol Webster sma Univue us parted yesterday morniog (or Sea Juam anion They rach carried & large number of pas scogess Their oames will be Cound ta paotaer colgamm r