The New York Herald Newspaper, January 24, 1852, Page 1

THE NEW YORK HERALD. e WHOLE NO. 7029. oo DOUBLE SHEET. THE FORREST DIVORCE CASE. ti f the Argument on ont ent the Plaka Superior Court, Before Chief Justice Oakley, CATHARINE N. FORREST V8. KOWIN FORREST. THIRTY-FIRST DAY. Janvany 23.—Mr. and Mra Forrest were in Court, a companied by their respective friends Mr. O'Covor arcse and continued his summing up this morning He said:—J nad arrived at the stats of some of the circumstances occurrmg about animportan period of the case—upon the day of their actual sep 1a. tion—the lst May, 1849. I have there shown you tia) Mr. Forrest was anxious at thet period of adopting « cheap mode of disposing of his lady—a mode cheap ia ‘One reuse, according to his views. and very dear in au- other view— and I should say a very costly mode of ex- posing the fact of the mariage desecration to general obeervstion. He desired to piace her in a boarding- house, at @ moderate rate ef charge, I advert to this cireumatanoe, ip order to mark afact which I shall seek 20 establish—thut at thix period Mr. Forrest had no be Jief of any guilt om the part of his wife, and had dovbt of ber perfect prudence--bad mo doubt her perfect cbastity, and never intended lo make any charge impeaching ber. The bosrding house proj-ct failed in consequence of the remonstrances of Mra, for- rest—remonstrancer which may be considered to have smounted to an absolute refusal, ‘Tha next stay, geu- tlemen, was to settle an alimony, Mr. Lawson was Mr Forrest's agent in this matier—a sort of “go between”’— to cettle 8 proper allowance cn Mrs. Forrest. Whatever lings of Liverslity actuated him on the occesion, in his decision, | krow not; Lam uawilling te iatroduce an un- necessary trsue in this cree, or even one werd upon the rubject.” You can't say hw tar 1 have practised for bearance. Lbave said noi upon the subject, uor have loffered one word; but w er liberality there aay have been exercised, it certainly wus @ liberality that needed a stimulus. for Mc Lavsen admite thst the treaty was going on for a consileradle length of time after the separation; that Me, Forrest cfered to settle on bis wile various sums, begin ning at the sum of $600 and # house to live in worth $375 ayear Did it show even a reagonnble epirit on the part of Mr. Forrest to desire to put his ledy into a brick house of two or three etories, with ber youny sister, who occupied the pesition of a daughter to ber--a woman who was in the habit of living ke a lady, and having servants—to put her in such @ house upon $500 a year? Why, it was s¢mething approaching to meanness ~ the opposite of libe- velity. But, at ail events, that was tho proposition that Was made. and attempted to be tointed upon Mrs, Forrest by the mild a of Mr. Lawson, She peremp- torily—if I may use so rtrong a term—in sub. stance and in effect, refused the acceptance of this allowance. She claimed more. and her olaim had been gradually conceded, until it reached the eum of fifteen hundred dol: year, she having re- quired two thousand dollars. ith such an allowance she could not live in a manner at all approaching that position which was due to the character of her husband, and during her own former mode of living whilst under his protection, without spending that amount. You re- member Mr. Lawson's letter, and that he denies “ the soft impeachment’ about the allowance of two thousand dollars; but if he did not suggest, he acquiesced with {t, and recommended that the ter might be adjusted. ‘Thus we see this fond and liberal husband making the hardest terms in his power. She insisted, until the emount came up to nearly that which was sufficient to support her during the period oftheir separation—which might not ey be very long; I call attention to that Lye in the proceedings, Mrs, Forrest, a zeae ‘lot, aceording to the statement of her husband, put away in consequence of her impurity, and then tenderly treated by her husband. and protected from shame by acts upon his part which, should the; ever have reached the public ear, would have cover: him with shame—to wit.: the concesling of her infamy— isoing ber in the bosom of arespectable family, and ing in the same bed with her four months after her lshonor. This lady, who ought to have been errr with gratitude and fear, if guilty she had been. insiste on a respectable regard being paid to her just rights as a . wife. She insisted upon having such an allowance as she would be content to take; she made her own terms, and she insisted upon and received them against bis will. Well, I add another circum- stance, for the purpose of showing that no such idea existed at that time in the mind of either party, of eny imputation on her chastity. I call attention toa ‘most tatisfactory piece of evidence—the most satisfac- tory in the whole case—I mean the letter to her father, John Sinclair, written by Mr. Laweon, closing with these words—Mr. O'Uonor then read the concluding portion of Mr. Lawson's letter, which has been published. This is the man who comes here to speak upon a mere form of speech, and says that he got his daughter to write the letter for him while he wasaway. ‘This the gross slander, in broader trp’, eountry woman of his—Mre Underwood. fion to thir letter, Wr.ten by James Laweon on the lst of May, 1849, Tt is not written at the dictation of Mra. Porrest: the merely requested him to write to her father, to break the unpleasant news to him. and to convince his judgment. But there is one important statement which bas a Seopareé to contredict the view of the case taken by the other side, to wit, the statement that her honor was uneullied. Her chastity demanded no certificates; so proud was she of her int ity that that portion of this letter alone commanded her repu- diation. When she heard of it, ufcer it was sent, she says : “ T object to that letter--to your certificate of my honor, which no one has ever impeached.” Is that, I atk—said in a moment o7 private confidence, and spoken to m supposed friend---was that tuc lancuage of a wo- man Who was conscious of guilt, and that ney busband had repudiated her for her guist, aud who was buifting upon him for permission to live in honor, or to bé whelmed in the pool of infamy’ Would she not have been mort anxious to receive from a bosom friend and associate a certificate in writing that her honor was Unsullied, and particularly when it came accompanied with @ note from Mr. Lawson? Was such a woman rot conscious of her innocence, and desirous to shield herself inst public condemnation’ I ask, is it pos- sibie to believe otherwise, with these irrefragable evi- dences’ But the position of her firs: explanation—‘why did you say oe about that which no one has ever impeached’ But, gentlemen, I return to that letter: | what does it ray” It gives the direct lie to every word uttered against her [Mr. 0.Conor read the letter, which bas been publithed, and continued] And that letter is from her beat friend, and approved of by Edwin Forrest. with the knowledge that it was to be sent acroas the Atlantic to her father, and to stand as @ testimoay at a future time. And it does stand es a testimony aguinst him, Gentlemen. why is this testimony not to hava ita efiect?, Have men lost their reason’ Ars the subjects of these questions to have no part in the admipistr: tion cf justice. and inthe common seute of mankind Now, let us follow up a litte farther the noxt stace in | the matter. We find Mr. Lawson ettempting to bring | abouta reconciliation between the parties, Ile was Mr. | Vorrert’s man of business. On all ions we find him in constant communication with ont, engaged in aneflort to bring about a reconciliation hat he asted tor the benefit of Mire. Forrest is beyoud hiy doubt, and itis clear enough that an intimacy existed between Mr. Stevens and Mr. Forrest.and that h ed in co-opsration with Mr. Forrest. She telis him, “I did not seek your interference and I fear evil consequences will arise from your interference, Lou have produced misohiet and evil.” I must here call attention to ¢ Rira, Forrest spent @ short time with ally. She then went into the house of a frie Mire Willis. Bho afterwards went to board with b aister in Great Jones street, and finally took up a revi- dence in Sixteenth atrect, and then Me’ Lawson's letter oft reconciliation were written They terminate in a manner unsatisfactory. Mrs, Forrest about the middie of December, 1849, wrote to Mr. Lawson the fellowing letter, (dir, O'Conor read this letter, which has been already published in the proseed!ngs of the 31st Desem- per, and continued.) Gentl:men thie {a the language of @ shameless woman. We find that this letter de- ounces bim as insincere aud tre: rous, and telling him to bis face that she refused him ae a friend and was juite willing that he ehould become an enemy—that he chould appear in his true guise. Was this the conduct of@ woman who was apprehensive of her condition! mative charateristic stole Gentlemen, a little of the vut in Lawson's note; you ree that there ia a fair amount of the feature of the Scotch character. and of which even Scotchimen ate not ashamed, Gentlemen, the first blew follows this with wonderfal ra. pidity. This letter murt have been written as late as the 1éth December. I think Mr Lawson states that he received it on the 20th; bythe 2ith Desember, 1849, you nd that the first blow is struck, (The leatned counsel read Mr. Forrest's letter of this dave, which has been ) It isanswered at on conded it should be—to answoring the (uestion whether the had impeached Mr Forrest's conduct in the matter of her separation, (Mr, O'Uonor read Mra Forrest's anawer, which bas been published, andcontinued) I call attention to the candor which calls thet answer a confession of her guilt, Au emissary was gent, and directed to keep a copy of it, thet he may be able to ear to it, and to cal for an immediate answer, wh he recei L would ask, do answer, and in precise lavguage, when it is con eidered that it comes from a lady unaccustomed 20 trinis of this deveriplion? And if it do not answer sil the Imputations inan accurate manner, it must be resol lected that it was not drawn “ander the advice of coua- sel,” bat wae dictated Uoder sentiments of a more proper kind than the dictation of counsel, and in now sought to ve turned agaiast hor |Mr. U'Conor read extracts feom the letter. in support ot its sincerity. end with reference to Mra Porrest's rtatewent that some one had poisoned her husband's mind, art pe dvds] Thow cama man's wind be polsoned exept by imputing that the mind was impressed by an erronrcus belief in rempect of the guilt of & party against whom the ofiort was made? Te that a confession that she wax guilty of infidelity with a vile ‘Lordinate actor, whom oven to have notived would Na reprowoh to her? Nat Mr Vorrest himself brought the poor creature (nto ber society. Thit woald be a confestion that phe bud stooped to the last dishou or to which it Was possible & woman could stoop, aud with ‘one of the lowest of the human faintly. reat God | is euch & covetruction to be pul upow ihe laoguage of « * suifering woman! Was eho to address herself in reply to such an epistie as the Consuelo note? (Counsel te ferred to various portions of Mes, Forrest « letter and declaration, and eked if they could be covstraed conferaion of gull, and continoed)—L wii now cal! at h not her letter give a full | he circumstances her, whioh has been reply to that affi- it he should are relevant, and I of- it that was an ‘auswer to 9 of where ! what is the next step in this matter? wiok was employed about that time. The next step affair is Mr. Forvey’s commission. The date of Mr. Forney’s letter was the 26th January, 1860, Mr. meee gives Mr. Forrest's statements, and it is argued that because there is a cortain degree of conflict, Mr. Forrest could not bave approved of every word of lt. Idon’t know that that is the right cenclu- sion. We have produced written statements of Mr. Forrest, under cath, and they conflict with cach other. Mr. Forrest denies that this man, Jamioson, whom he knows to be @ poor creature, was induced to make an admission in evidence against Mrs, Forrest, aud in the evidence to be duced before the State Legislature—tor be could not hope it to stand in court of justics, though it might pass as evidence before a Legislature. He is fond of fools, avd he made his suggestions to Mr. Forrest, as I will read to you (Mr O’Uonor then read Mr. Forney’s letter, which has appeared in the Herain, and continued : Now, next to the 2th January. 1850, oame part of the admiseion from Mr. Forrest, relative to the‘ half fo: tune” placed inthe morket'as an inducement to over vugaboud in the community to come forward to contri- bute his mite for the socomplishment of the desired o| ject. Dhat,we have in black and white from no less a person than the editor of » newapaper—a friend and ad- titer of Mr Forrest--end who swears to you that he wrote that letter upon the authority of Mr. Forrest. That a man, nearly crazy, with seventy-five thou- sand dollars at his comreand, and with his Philadalytia iniends in abundance should have induced Uatherine In- yeroll, is not to be wondered at; ena which was ready t iven to thore who would be instrumental in re- him from bis hateful bond.—thouga it might not be iiterally true, it eizikes mo that the party would try Lo keep back some part of the seventy-five thonsaud dol arr, and wouldrather hold them out, by wey of temp- tation, to parties to induce them to come forward for his parpose--yea, even at ten per cent of the amouat, it would be enough to bring an army of Ann Flowers to deilour half the ladies ef New York. (Laughter) Well, now, gentlemen, on the 2th, or the 7ch January, but two days after that, Mr Forrestand bis Piiladelphia lay were srrivid in the city of New York. and toos lodg- i letters inviting a conference at his house, for the purpose of showing me such affidavits as he might think proper to present, and to apprize me of the course he intended to pursue, and as to obtaining the assent of Mrs. Forrest to this proceeding. I received that letter ou Monday morning, and I answered it on Monday evening. Leame to the mevting instructed by Mrs Forrest to do everything tomake her husband happy. if Mr, Forrest want:d a divorce, he was welcome to it, but the would not submit to be dishonored. She required me to take such measures as would preserve her honor uu. tarnished. Inoted with caution in the case, knowing that an application had been made in a court of justice. Bhe gave us notice of a violated agreement, by making an impeachment of her honor Whatever ner lord wanted he was welcome to, except her honor, which she would not allow to be impeached. And now, what mighty and strenuous efforts were made in the case to falsify the affidavit of Mrs. Forrest, to prove this state of things — that she was willing at that time, and had been for a length of time to allow a divorce to be obtained from her, founded upon charges upon which to impeach her, fidelity. In consequence of the advive I gave her she di: sented, and was induced to change her viewsin that re- spect. The attemptjwas to show that fora length of time previous to this meeting ,Mr. Forrest had been in treaty with Mr. Bryant and another party to have the matter adjusted; that things went along agteeably to Mra, For- rest, and that she was ready to submit, but that, unfor- tunately, ehe feil into the hands of an individual who would notallow her to slide down the slough of destruc- tion; that it was my improper interference, if you pleaseiZwhich prevented the matter from be- img amicably adjusted. The letters have been produced, and Mr. Bryant has been produced. The learned eounsel has on several occasions endeavored to argue that Mrs. Forrest did not follow the advice of her early friends, but was led by the advice of counsel to: adopt a different course. What had I todo with Mrs, Forcest or Mr.Forrest peersaualy® Has it ever been proved that Iever spoke to either of them? 1t has not been proved—and if proved by somebody, would not have been true. I did not know Mr. Forrest off the stage, and I knew Mrs, For- rest only aga client. Will it be eaia that I was so hardly preased for business that I was anxious for that of a poor woman, with $1,600 a year ?—that I was anxious ave her lawsuit im Pennsylvania, in order that I might have the advantage of getting her business? There is no ground for supposing anything of that kind, but that I undertook the execution of her orders, and would have submitted to enything and everything but her dishonor; that she was willing to do so, and I communicated it just as it was. Now, gentlemen, what is the fact ’ Has Mr. Bryant interfered with the matter pgeviously ? Now, when Mr. Sedgwick came to be examined, he tells you, that ‘after we found all treaty with the counsel by whom the matter had beea commenced had been broken, in consequence of ite being necessary to mske rome impeachment against the cha racter of Mra Forrest. in order to obtain divorce, w egrecd that we should callin Mr. Bryant.” His first in- terference appears to have been on the sixth of February, when be addxested a letter to me. It is very clear and pointed, (Mr, O’Conor read the letter,which has peared ) Mrs Forrest agroed to this letter, having seen the petition to which it refers, The learned counsel then detailed the negotiations which had been car- ried op, and the scts in connection with them. He refered to the statement which had been made of his (Mr. O'Conor) having been seen pacing up and dowd Twenty- second street, in search ot Barney MoVabe, the witness, and ridiculed the*asseriion. He derided the idence of Anna Wiowers, aud the corrupt manner in which it Was sought for and obtained He produced a copy of a letier, Written by Mr, Forrest, in reference Place riot, ia Whigh he exuited over the de- struction cf the pecple, aud asked, what are the lives of a mob compared with the lite ef a superior man’ The demon of massacre! Could any individual be found on this matter. daring to advance a single step in invoking the shield of justice in favor of the victim of his dia- bolieal malignity, without exciting a desire on his part thet their blood might flow, and thet their reputation might be blasted? erring to Mr. Lawson, he conai- dered him to bea man who had played to the very let- ter the character of MacSycophant to his lord: and ‘het he bad doos his biddirg in all things it bos been raid thet truth spoken with any injurious purpose of deceiving (he hearers, is pat in the nature and clothed in the tof falsehood; there is not a man living who could uot coin words in such ® way as to yerrest the truth, ia the meaning of them; and [ave pe for Mr. for to put down the meaning which he on to convey to the court, ve bare the very bei thatof Mr. Forrest hav- ing seen and approved of the copy of tbat letter, imme- | dintely after it was written. Why was this courte taken? Why, Lawson did it merely forthe purpose which he made in his etat t, and which statement, we ray, r be true in one particular, to which I desire to cell your attention; but I am willing to have the reat token for granted. The part we object to is where Mr. n states that Mra Forrest, at some period after their sey n bad taken place, told Mr. Lawson that « bad ebteined from Mr. Forrest a promise to kesp reoret the cause of their separation=-that ix, that she hed obtained, This is all I care about in the testimony of Mr Las son That we cay, 's not so; hisstatement is not at all materiai, except as it helps to support the implication that it was some crime on the part of Mrs. Forrest which the cause of th ation Now, ia the first place, #is amere rey of Mrs. Forrest's words, and “0 words might ve been forgotten, or mis- en or verted, without beiog very gailty. In that met affidavit of Mr. Lawson's, thére is no such state- tment os Chatto be found. We have always asserted, and now serert, thet the demand for eecrecy was on the part ofMr Forrest. It is impoesible that Mra. Forrest cool’ have anid eo, Mr, Lawson also tells you that er Forrest other thing, which she denleg-cthiat she asked Mr Forrest whether he had any fault to fiad with ber a¥ a wife; aud that Mr. Forrest answered, ‘No, Vathacine; no, | Would to God I had, for then I should not feel us bedly ast do.” That we deny, and the ge on of the jury ave perfeotly aware that we might admit it, without any prejudice, and therefore we might as well adit it if it wan ine; but we deny it, His honor, the Judge, put » question to Mr. Lawson, for which we thank bim, (in | reapect to what Mr. Forrest informed us—that it was the | same conversation In whiclf Mrs. Forrest said this thing about her snd her husband—that he could find no feultin her.) and Mr Lawson amewered that it was _ in the «ame conversation when she told him that she | had requested Mr. Forrest to keep the cause of their seperation secret. Now, gentlemen, if it was, why. what did Mrs. Forrest tell him ot that time! She told him, in the frat place, that there no fanit on her part. fhe told him, in the next place, that ir. Forrest him- telf admitted there was no fauit on her part. And she told him, in the third place, that the cause of their separation wos kept secret at her request. Now, suppose it were all true, would the iiplication arise that she acknow- to Lawson that he cause of the separation was lity on her part’ Certainly not—cestainly not. ¢ communication would necessarily be to the effect thet even though she had desired it to be kapt secret, still there Was no fault on her part; but the fact is, she did not make these communications, or eliher of them ‘They are just like Mr. Kdwin Forrest's affidavits as to hie residence in Pennsylvania, made in February avd Avpust, 1850, which neutralize and contradict’ each other, Itisapparent thet such statements could not have bern made at the ame time. I am now, cantle- en, dene with Mr Lawson, and will direct your atten- tion to Deceraber, 1949, when Mr Forrest changed his note, and deterraipedsto reek for a divor pore of vindisating his character, It will be reon that Mr. Wililn did mot prove It a own admistion, that Mes Forrest said nothing against the character of her husband. Nobody proves iv, nor in y testinony of it, except he mise able little bit fevidence coming from Mr Burr, of the otiice of Burt He comes and tells you that a lady who been proved to heve ured indecent terms to yelse than to hima total stranger--came and any told him about living in w state of prostitution, though he did not pretend to have had any intimacy with her; and also tele bim that, up to the Macresdy affair. thera ena Kader hueband, And this i the little ctavidence om which, gud on which alon: they rely ( justify the aseartion ou their patt—coutain ed in the lotter of December, 189, and acrerted bers at the Astor Houre; they go to the house of Mr, | te gwick, ard he eubsequenily wrives to me two | s for the pur. | jording to counsel’s | imputing blame to him. And this, gentlemen, comes from a source—from a man whee: oharsoter may be judg:d by the company he ioepe And it is so slight. 80 evamesoont, in Itself, that it is imporsible to attach any importance to it—particularly as Mr. Burr etates he mever repeated to at Person the substance of this con- versation. This is the evidence that she ever had attempted to Impeach the character of Mr. Forrest in relation to their separation. When Mr. Forrest com- menced these proceedings, had he become satisfied that, to protect his reputation, it was necessary to obtain a divorce, and to set forth the grounds on which he ob- tained it? And ifso, why did he offer to bind himself to keep the proceedings private? It is the testimony of Mr. Bryant that he did so—it is the testimony of Mr Seag- wick, his own counsel, that they off-red solemaly, to pledge themselves that he would not give any publicity tothe charges, or to the testimony on this application, and would prevent any publicity being given by avy other. now or hereafter. ‘This was his solemn prom: Now, this was rather an odd way of vindicating # man’s character, to make intereet with a judicia! committee by the force of his personal influence. On farther reference to the evi ence upon this point, Mr O'Conor remarked upon the porn to pass the bill through the Penn- syivania Legislature, without the charves being made Bee. Now, he would ask, was there any evidence ef er guilt when Mr. Forrest determined to proceed against her’ At the time of the inturview which took piace bo- tween Mr. Sedgwick and himeelf (Mr. O'Conor), there was existing that Consuelo letter. Now, as to that Con- euelo letter. he had shown the jury that it was not the cause of the acparation. As to that letter or that poeiry, it was not shown that it was ever in her pos- session, except by ber own adwission. In the next place, it is addreesed to @ sort of divinity, and in the next pla it has no individuality; it has no pame, 20 signaturo—no adopted signature by which it could be known asthe homage of a@ particular indivi- dual, It might be copied from gome book, and in all probability it was—for those gentlemen who profes. to write extemporameounly generally borrow their ideas, and it would require very extensive reading to be able to detect the plagiarieus And what is the charactor of Consuelo? In Mrs. Forrest's affidavit, in the print- ed book, page 206, sbe says : 49,' tle heroine of @ modorn French nov: therein represented as n woman obarncterized by the | dogres of aminbility, chastity and purity tha’ th sould conceive or language portray. The word sic * consolation,” when rendered into English, No ress could exit for the adoption of that addrevs in said letter, except somes fancied resemblance betweoa the obaracter of the person addressed and the heroine, But they had been toid, b; of taking off the effect of that, that the lady who wrote the work adopted a male designation inher writings, Ha, however, found in Howitt's Journal, vol. 1, page 129, the following It ia 9 grose mistake to confound George 8: Praved writers of the Balzac, never makes vice beautiful atrows rores over oorruption ic rounded with the glory of art, and the blosseduess of well- doing is represented aa the highost aim and reward of lifo. Sir O'Conor then referred to Story’s life of his father, in which, in order to convey the highest conception that he could conceive of bis most exoellent father, he ecmpares him to Consuelo, Bomebody—Qvoree J. sou. if they pleased—wrcte this rhodomontade which the counsel read, and he said be wouid read it weil and po dovbt he did, for he had read it often enough, and if be could read nothing else well, he ought to be able to read that to perfection. (Lwughter.) Well, Mrs. For- rest did rot burn that letter, and on its romsntic terme she is to be denounced as an acknowledge base woman. Jf Jamieson had criminal intimacy with Mrs, Forrest. would he not have written letters of a diiferent deecription ?—some plain languaze, containing matters of fact, and naming time und place of meeting! A woman who had betrayed her husband would not “certainly be addreeecd in (hisstrong and warm Tonguag aman loses all respect for a woman after her honcr, and it is not when she is sunk, such langusge as that is addrereed tohcr. If Mrs Forrest was that guilty woman, would she have placed thet letter in a drawer which it was shown could be easily opened! The fair construction is, that this man having entertained high admiration for Mrs Forrest's character, aa every one who comes within the sphere of her acquaintance entertains for her—even Mr James Lawson tells them be admired aud respected her--that man (Jamieson) sat down, per- haps, in a drunken fit and either wrote this rhodomon- tede crecpied it froma book. The greater part of it ep- pears to be the most monstrous nonsense. As to the poetry-—he meant the rhyme, which is much less pootic then the prose, as is often the case—now, he thought that in epeaking of Mrs. Forrest the writer might have ones of her charms, and not confined them to one, le Saysi-— “Of calling back. with fancy’s charm, ‘Those halcyon hours when in my arm, Clasped Consuelo.’” ‘This he (Mr O’Conor) supposed was a poetis license, and that the writer used but one arm in his rhapsody to rhyme it with charm. (Laughter) Now, he might have used the word enjoyment; but then he should have made it rhyme with--what? Employment. That would not do--fancied happiness fs a bliss--and then, of course, what word is there to rhyme with it but “kiss?” (Laugh. ter.) After afew further remarks upon the prose and poetry of the letter, he continued to eay that it was vain to descant at length on this sort of poetical stuff, which gentlemen please indulge in. It was speaking “of” a lady, rather than “to” her. Mrs. Forrest is a lady whose Very looks and presence--he said it with confidence--command at once the respectful distance of any map, be he ever ao great a libertine, and towards whom, during twelve long ycars of intimacy, even Ed win Forrest himself, with all the righvs and privlleges of a hurbaud, had never dared (when he didspeak) to ad- dress her in any other language than that of the most @eferential and respectful character. They kuew no- thing of his speaking, except by his letters, and they all speak of her as the “Consuelo ’’ of his life, which life could be of very little value when he banished Con- tuelo from his side. But how is it to be supposed that Mrs Forrest should have received that letter, and go ucker like Dame Usderwood, and put it out of ingterd of keeping it as acuriosity to show her : ‘aighrc! ! It fell into the hands of her husband; it was brought beford the Pennsylvania Legislature, and war pronounced utterly in¢omclusive an to the guilt of Mrs. Forrest; it was apparent thar Mr. Forreet was awere that that letter could be of iittle avail, and he therefore endeavored to get out of Jamieson, when drunk,through the agency of John W. Forney, bra- yado admission of his intimacy with Mrs. Forrest--the evidence required to be fulfilled by ®n admission ex- torted from Jamieson inan hour ofintoxieation Again, they find that Mr. Forrest, by the advice of his coun- sel--though in the possession ot this letter, aad the testimony of Garvin and Mra. Underwood--.took a #o- lemn oath that, without the evidence of Anna Flowers, he could not safely goto trial. Mr. Forrest, in his aff davit of 2st May, 1851, rays :— He has fvily and fairly etated this one to Van Baron and Rohinzon, of tho city of New York, hia al therein, and that he basa good and oubsiential defence in said caure on the merite, as he is advised by his said counsel, aud verily heltoves; that he expects to be able to prove by Auns Flow. hover rewax virtue is by her 1% Who ja nots reeident of this State, but resides in the city of New Orlepns, en actof adultery commitied by the plain tifwith one William A. Howard; that thi a jvity and fairly etated to pie enid hoable top: ove by the onid Anne said o 8 ness for dopone cauos, snd nt the bonent of st Caunot eafely proceed to the trial o oxutss. Now, with the Consnelo letter. and all the other testi- mony, he swears he caunot go to trial witho y of that wito He (Mr O’Conor) submitted thet the whole of Mr Forrest's conduot, from January. 1849, to the close of tat year, was most conclusive that he never could have considered the Consuelo letter but as he (Mr. O'U ) did, @ piece of rhedomondete, which his lady had incautiously, but cerlainly not impruaevtly, ret Mr. O'Conor then referred t rest’s declsra mocence, which had n by Mr Forre signed by her, and v rooneding to state what s raid by Mr, Forrest in his aifdavit respecting it, when Mr. Von Buren object as Mr. Forrest's affidavit was not permitted to be read in evidence. The Chief Jusiice said that the afidavit of Mr. Forres hed not been read. and certainiy could not be com- mented on. It ce ferred to #0 far as it was e wedin Mrs. F. s affidavit fy O'Couor eas. only intended to refer to it so far n ith been noticed in Mra, Forrest’s answer. Mr. res: charges Mrs. Forroat with signing the declara an eoofing and contemptuous manuer. Mr. For- st say—thore te no ground for saying—tha’ that deotay chanped the churacter of the Consuelo letter, [i he believed hur gulity, why did he separate fiom her? Why, on account’ of her guilt? Mr. O'Conor again read the declaration, which has been already published in the proceedings of the 2d January, and leo that part of Mrs, Forrest's affidavit in which she said ehe suppored it had been ante-dated by Mr. Forrest. They would recollect that this document was suddenly started on her=she bad forgotten its precise language, and she was called upon under oath to reply to it. and she says her recollection was that it was only in reference to charges of a very venial nature ; and yet how perfectly true her afidavit seema to be! Mr. O Conor here pointed out to the jury the manner in which the document was written, and said that it was commenced differently from Mr. Forrest's usual mode ‘The latter portion of it is in these werds :— All this, in tho presence of Almighty God, I swear. and if it be not true, may poace, comfort happinoes, forsake » yo me in this life, amd forsake my boul for ever im the life to come Now he, (Mr. O'Conor,) charged that this had been added after Mra. Forrest reigned it, Looking at the whole paper, the internal evidence is that Mr. Forrest, when he wrote it, began inthe middle, io these words: — J have never been unfaithful to the marriage bed; I have never, at any time, permitted any man whatever to takes liberty with me that might not be warrantable in the con- duct cf the purest wife; that no man whatever hes for a mo- rient caused me to falter in my fidelity to my lawful, hus- or den that the solomn vows of duty. and affection, and oho- ote him, Lave, with the best of my wbiiity, boon faitn- observed; I have nover pormitted the caress, or oa- “t, the embrace, or emh y otl han my anil husband. Toa G tess and attest that no mien baw ever, by Word OF w with the le ons {vanes OB MY PATS Dropon aby thing that sight not have beet tence of my lawiul bucband I never havo, by intent of wore or setion, given any nan Cause to api that I conid jiu sny eilogiance to my hu hewnnd bad In any degree di ed. Vorrest signed tt, and then che first paragraph was Al terwaade interted—= With the rinoeso and awfal conviction shat T now stand in tho B eof Almighty God, 1 oail him to witness rod record We teuth of what 1 now utter, and also thas R ter it without w servation, Lie eubsoitted that tt was, and that the general habit @ Goation to this onse fortifies this view. Court tock ® recess for afew minutes, On re swembling, Mr O'Conor reeamed, and raid that he did tention If jou please, to citenmstanons im proof of what that Mars, Forrest endeavored to tujure nis charnoter by feces (hal when the doolagation was written it had pi Resear it was written currente calamo, and the difference of the ink shows that the date and the other seth” con, sorting Catt was mot loaty rant it was most o! made out that Mrs. Forrest did not ask her husband to keep the cause of their separation seoret, He had not the elightest suspicion that Mrs. Forrest was Fiore of any orimipal act, or supposed that she had been incautious— which implies no criminality at all on her part—in not destroying this very foolish poetio effusion of Jawieeon. I will now proceed to the eul juent events in this case ; and it is with reluctance that I feel obliged to say a word in relation to @ matter ocouring earlier than the proceedings by suit in Philadelphia, for the pur- pore of snort: that among the many bad qualities of Mrs. Forrest she has inherited that of lying; all the proois in support of which I have snswered, except one. The learned counsel saye that in speaxing of the Mac- ready controversy, ahe rays she did not encour: and sustein her horband, and that her letters show she did, Now, her statement upon that subjuct assuredly mays that she dit not disapprove of Mr Forrest hissing Mr, Macready in England. and Mr, Lawson coofirma what the raid. Mira Forrest says she disaporoved of his say- ing constantly that he would drive Macready from the stege; But there is no proof that he ever ea'd that, bee yond what she admita in her own affidavit. Bhe far- ther eays that she did disapprove of the epithets con- tained in bis cord: that she disapproved of ihem in convervation witn bim in Philadelphia, when sho went to sve him there; ana that he then turned upon her charged ber with insincerity in the letter waich bad previously written to hum, and ja which she, iu general terms, approved the card—whioh letter has been reed bere, but which does not contradict her affidavit, ivement, “and against his courte should be said to bis face, and not written to him ®he still further rays that, although she disapproved of these things, yet, when Mr Macready cawe outagaiart ir. Forrest, ip & very offensive speech, that, as bis loyal wife, and stending by him, right or wrong, ber feclings were exelted against Macready. She felt strongly against him.and with her hnsband, and rhe did in ber letter apply to him, by way of encourag ment to ber lord, the expressions, copied from his own letters to hi superannuated,” “ifao,? “ old woman,” &e Now, thet, in briot, is her statement; apd bow is it fulsifled? Is it not the mos: natural thing in the world for her to bave acted ae she did in thiemacter? Her statement that ehe did disapprove of the language in the curd, is comfirined by the last wit nese, Mr. Smith, the builder, who seys that, in January, 1849, after he knew of the rer no, he asked Mre, Forrest what was the cn of it, when she replied it not 4 difference about Meoready, becauee she approved of his course with him: Mr, O'Conor here prooveded to comment at some longth on the Macieady diffieuity, and then continued as fol- lows:—We bave now Mr. Forrest defeated in hie suit before the Pennsylvania Legislature, his proots set at naught, and standing upon the soil of New York with thess proots in his hand, and the privilege of commenc- ing a suit here if he chose It would seem he formed the determination of commencing nn action ia the Court of Common Pleas of the city and county of Philadel- phia; but be wns not quite ready after the adjournment. of the Legislature, He had already in his proceedings before that body implicated nine persons, viz:—Georze darieson, N. P. Willis, Samiuel Marsden Raymond, Ricbard Willis, Captain Granby Calcraft, William Il. Howard, John’ B. Rich, Henry Wyckof, and poor Profesror Heekley, whom the counsel insinuates by bis crost-examination of Mr. President King has been scared out of town to save himself from the trouble of coming to vindicate from the chargea of Dame Under- wood ‘That may be true, and, indeed, it is not at all improbable, for euch charges would scare agreat many people besides Professor Dackley, He hed iiuplicated all there persons except William H. lloward. He want- ed some more testimony; so he set bimelf to think and enquire, under the influence of those principles that governed him in the Forney letter, for a witness who could implicate this person, or somebody else more easily reached; and it would seem that, in looking about to cull a flower to add to his bouquet, he thought cf Anna Flowers. He foundout her reputation, and he proceeded to her mother, to inquire for her, communicating to hor his object, But woat does that good old lady say? She said rhe would not tell him where she was to be found, and left him in entire ignorance of her where- abouts He next furnishes another presedent for the letter they say I wrote to Barney McUabe. He puts in the New Orleazs Picayune, an advertisement for Anne Flowers; on teeing which, the goes to the office of that Paper and is sent to New York Well, she comes to this ci:y, and the furnishes him with a new accusation, and makes @ deposition at the Irving Houre, on the 10th of June, 1850; und on the 9th of August, Mr. Forreet es bis libel in the Court of Common Pleas of the cily and county of Philadelphia, charging all these faine persons over again, with the exception of Professcr Maokley, whom he left out, amd whom he ad- mits was catirel, innecent—be leaves him out, and puts ip Wiltiam H Howard. Well, here is a ground of com- laint, It is said that, on the filing of this complaint in Poiladephia, Mee. Forrest should have gone there, and oid not; andgrest feult is found with what was done todefeat that suit Whe complaint is, that all the en. gluery of the law was made ure of to’ prevent this suit fem proceeding in Philadelphia. Now, the Court will tell you their action in this respect was a viola- tion of law and jurtioeman etiempt to make this Indy 4o from her own country to a foreign Btate, where se did not reside, and where she bad ne friends-- to subinit herself to trial on the charges alleced against ter. 7 ‘opor here alluded to the courve pursued by train My, Forrest from continuing his roceeding to the consideration of the charg net Mr. Forrest of assceiating ord keeping iste houra with persous unknown to her husband, it reems, eaid be, thet Mr. Richard Willis, who had speot sixyearsin Germany for the purpose of studying muric, and who came home highly accompilshed in thet ert, wes at « party--certainly « respectable one— at (he house of Mrs forrest, and that atver the party e and Mies Margaret Siuciair, who had a great jon of rurical kuowledye--she and bt figoter, naturally ok, other's aoyuar ' t by 20 dcing they might thus receive amutual efit, The nights stole on in this ny ; the hours passed ewoy unodrri ved, and broad daylight foand them yet in the enjoyment of th ical treat. Could there bo any- g more chaste, or refined, and delivate, than the minnuer in which that night was spent, according to the inrrfiegeble tectimeny cf the pure and virtucos have produced’ And while Mrs. Willis war op the stand, i vivst say that from my very heart I pitied thi: defend- ant, It wes the only stags of ¢ I felt pity for bim, to thio he should have been Hed, after bring i kitehen witnesses on the slau to heax the whole matter (o which they testified, fully described by a lady who pertook of that evening’s enjoyment. 1 felt pity Liwecit to eutt in Ph fir bin at the contract presented between that Indy b par and Limself before the jury--he who Lated and who delighted himeclf In mitt ckirg and holding « certain rpecies of « with £ spending bis days at bi. rt Le must have telt debased in his own raid, “My God. how L must appear before y! Am! not like some obscene emia ped from its slough, and looks out tr nt at the refined aud delicate thinks 18, Fe 5 h he he allowed pers Whe that to cor , made, it wasin ref teas, to t roission that it was ge on who were bim. Was Mr. N.P. Willis disegreeabl introduced that gentleman audhix wite and they exche terms with bim ‘he month of aeey, ings in the Peonsylya Jich time he never had ntof Mr Willis. nd continued on amicable | | when he commenced nis Le ‘elature, and dowa to y ted anything to the Never, in a single instance. @ ceived any person into her houre any reepect, disagreesble to ready eaid, it wight be hor sister Mergaret; ani, | I trust, it ie not adultery in a woman to keep up connec- tion with her own sister. Truc, he didn’ tknow Mr. Richard Willis who was only here a short period, and that during Mr. Forrest's abeencs. But, gentlemen of the jury, he was not dieagreenbie to Mr. Forrest, for he bad never expressed any dinsatirfaction it him; and, there- fore, any attempt to show that sho was guilty of bring- ing any of the imale sex who were disagreeable to him into the houre, is unsupported by a shadow of proof. Bince Mr. Forrest commenced nis proceedings against his wite, she has not considered kerrelt bound to quarrel with everybody he quarrelled with. It seeras to have teen part of his game to charge with adulter; eve joan standing on friendly celations witl her, and thereby exclude her from all society. You ree how extensive these e, and that they are evidently brought in bad faith, beoause he brings them in one day, loaves them out the next, then egain brings them inon the third aud«o on. BE dently his intention was to slander and falrify this lady, end place ber in sucha porition that no one would even efter any aid, But frou the moment he commenced this suit against b she was no longer bound to pay any attention to his charges to repudiate her friends be- caure they did not suit him. Geatiemonof the jury, you observe that hie own witness, Mre. Underwood, whom the counsel exammed himself betore this trial, stated expressly, on the stand, there was nothing im- roper between Mr Richard Wallis aod + rs. Forrest Rovert Garvin swears on this trial, point blanks, charges Forrest’s use emoke a segaratall. She introduced there segare, it is true. and made a present of One small one to Mr. Law- son’s little boy, and gave another, at Mr. Voorhies fare- well party, toMr. Godwin She smoked one herself; and it was one of chose little playful matters in which there might have been some personal indulgence; but all this waa done in presence of her husband's personal fri Well, now, asto her drinking. Can anyhing be bare more infamous, than that charge rs, she did; did not strong thinge—and saw her frequen that ehe was under the influence of time--all stumble about ; rink half make a very strong care against Mrs. Forrest Mr. Van Buren—She did not ray, when on thestand, that Mrs. Fosrest was a {dicted to drinking Mr. 0’Conor—Very well. her affidavit before the Pennsylvania Legisiature, counaol saya that it was not true, why I have only to say I thank bim for this admission, which means that the ly when sbe has two chances of swearing, will old eweur two ways. Mr Van Buren—I only say that your statement that Dire, Underwood swore to Mxe, ‘s being commonly, and on all occasions, drunk, is unwarranted by any statement which she made on the etund. She did not | say even that she wae drunk on any oocasion, as she was very cereful in giving her evidence on this point Mr. O'Conor.— Weil, we will pasa Mrs, Underwood's testimony—it certainly is not of much consequence, ouly that it wight be colored in obverving on it. But what does counrel mean in summing up on this matter of drinking; who else has proved it? And has he not sum- med up that Mrs, Forrest was drinking, intemperate woman’? Where is the evidence on this point? 1 can- not find any, except the depositions of Mrs, Underwood. In her statement, and her depositions together, she cer- tainly does testify that Mrs. Forrest drank strong drinks that she was intemperate, aud sprained her ancle by 9 fall, and that she appeared to be disguised with liquor on that cocasion, Now, let us see what testimony there inabout drinking, from other quarters. Why, we have Robert Garvin, the waiter, who did attend oa the table, snd did reo what drinking there was, and he swore to the drinking of wine; he could not say ax to anything else; he «wore to no particular quantity; she drank a glass cr ro of wine going to bed; she drank wine at table, but not to any extent; that is Robert Garvin's stiane n; Mr, Ven Buren reminded oounsel that he had sworn to her drinking on certain occasions Mr. ©'Conor,—Oh, yes; but [ am speaking now of what Robert Garvin says as to her general habits—but L forgot Lester and apt. Caloraft.” Well, he says he thought that onone of thore occasions, she and Lester were both tipsy; this is a single occasion, and this is all the evindence on this subject. They could have brought in Lester, but I suppose they think he is drowned. Aman who did not know what 4 minister of the gospel means, is too illustrious an American for us to compre- hend. But iti«raid that Garvin did state on one ooca- sion that Mrs. Forrest was dirguited with liquor on the oecarion when she dined with Captain Calcraft. This is theevidence of these two servants; and what is the con- ary evidence against this? Has @ single decent, respectable person, acquainted with this ee or who visited in this family, ever testified to the siightest ap- pearance of Mra, Forrest having been ever disguised with liquor? We have examined the impeached and the un- impeached, from Mr. Bryant to Supt. Calcraft. We bave examined Mrs. Willis, and all the persons who visited that Louse, and not one, under the examination of coun- te] on the other side, and under my own, afforded the least countenance to the assertion that Mra, Forrest ever .in any.degree, however slight, disguised with liquor. . Forrest swears precirely in her affidavit.that she was not. and if that was faire, it would have been a very easy point to swear her down, if any respectable man or woman could be fourd to give any evidence in sup- port of that obarge. It is mort palpable and plain that this charge is as utterly and imfamousiy untrue as any other charge which has been advanced in evidence against Mrs. Forrest. So much, gontleimen, for these general remarks. Now, I come more closely to the par- ticular evidenoe bearing directly on the supposed guilt of Mrs. Forrest; and first fot. mo call attention to MF. Jobn Kent, or, more properly speaking, let me oallattention, in euccession, to the imputations suppored to have been made out against Mr. Jamieson, Mr. Willis, Cupt. Mow. erd,&c. As to Jamieson, a word of observation is not vecesrary beyond this—that the evidence rests solely, tingly, and entirely on the Consuclo letter, with the di- rect and positive denial of Mrs. forrest, under oath, The other party hes the advantage of Jamieson not being here; but, gentlemen, bow were we to ccmpel Mr. Jamieson (0 be here’? Andif Mr Forrest was willing to offer a Jarge sum to bribe Mr. Jamieson toan admission, have we not a fairright to assert that the reuson why Mr Jamieson is nvt here is beeause that be received an adequate inducement to stay away? One of twotbings, in my judgment, is absolutely certain —that Mr, Jamieson’s absence is :ither wholiy procured by means of operating on his fests, or else procured by means of direct peenniary benefits, made to operate in support of and in favor of bis friends and employers, in his present reeidence in St. Louis, State of Missouri. ‘There 18 uo evidence on that point. beyond the Consuelo letter; and on that I have already obrerved. and there- fore with this I diemiss Mr. Jamieson. I next call your attention to the evidence bearing cn Mr. Nathanie P. Willis. Well, on this subject it is important to seein what respect the Willis family and the family ot Mr. Forrest stocd towards each other. You have had intrcduced a lady who mvst have commanded the ut- mort rerpect--I might almost ray the effectionate good will---of every honorable minded man on this jary—I mean Mrs. Caroline (Grinnell Willis, She gave ou an account of the manner in which these Istimate relations arose between the families of Mr. Wile bis ond Mr, Forrest, Mr. Forreet brought it about ort inally by introducing the p: & together. Very soon aiter the introduction, and in that year, Mr. Forrest vent off South, I believe, for four montba, and Mra Voor- es60 pursed and tended and befriended Mrs. Willis in be bilnglug wp of ber firet child, that Mrs, Willis telig you her family always felt that they owed the praserva- tion of the Ife of Ler cbiid te the Kindness experienced, and the services received, from Mrs Voorhies, (Counsel alluded to the delicate and generous services rendered by Mra. V. toMra. W., by the substitation of their babes In ing, that ot Mrs, W.'s being very weak ard sickly, he mother being tro delicate to attend to it) New, gentlemen, this lady, Mrs, Willis, owing the extstence of Ter child to Mre, Voorhies, they stood, as it were, in the Telaticn of foster risters to each other, aud Mra’ Willis and her husband had the entrée tothe house of Mr. For- rest. -and that by Mr. Forrest's consent and desire-- and were on the most intimate terme with hie ledy. Mrs Forrest, of couree, whenever abe could, had ber ais. ter Morgaret with’ her, and indulged in the plea- sure of ker society, and very charming society it oppears to bave been conside had iutercour th her, in consequence pa: of her acoomplisbicent in the art of music, and in con- Kyurnce, alo, of the kindness and benevolones of her beort We find at a subsequent period, when Mrs. Willis wes ogain on the bed of sickness, and agein safforing in conseqvence of bearing her second child, that she re- ceived the nuring and atten tevt, fron Mrs and ibis p of ecuree, the moet kindly relati P illie wae in the habit of ularly educed as hetwero them. akin asa mattor Mr oerest * morning cells’ use of Mr. Fo This havit , bas been toriv vidence of guilt. J think the Court will teil tell you, aid your own common sense wil te ou, that It camnot be soconstrued. at there secme Uirect evidence going how that dee heen guilty of great impropriety with § rd et evidence given on this andj very dark. the whole of the evdence agninet Mr. Willis. token frm Hebert Garvin, when he was first examined be ore the Penpaylvari evidence of Robert Gar x Why. he tells you that on one cor in the wear of the drawing-room; that open—not having been shut as nto that corner ot the room where wnish picture was placed, he saw that oue of the sofas had beon removed there, and Mr. Willis and Mrs Forrest were on it together, and Mr Willis was lying o- balf lying. on the person of Mra Forrest. Now, if lune derstand the counre! be said that Nobert Garvin did no prove adultery. Well, if be did not, £ ehould like t know how sdultery is to be proved. I, for my part, should consider that quite enough; but if not enough. he bes rupplicd the balance. He rays be withdrew sbortly after; that rubsequently he went into the room and picked up—ss camp women oT camp followers, afier the battle, would pick up the epoils of combat—a garter and rome he'r pike Which would appear to have been lost in the course Of the combat, whien took piace on this occasion between Mr, Willis and Mrw. Forrest. 1 should like to know how much more wae requisite to prove adultery; erd that Robert Garvin put this cons'ruction upon it is lear, for ho called up somebody—O' Brien, from cheo, and exhibited to her these trophies which ad picked up, the garter and the hair pins-in order ow what kind of thing had taken place It was re marked that this O'Brien ix not here, bat we could not pressure her attendance. We asked Robert where she but he did not know where rhe was to be found v! w nd on Looking fi to adultery commitied between Raymond and Mrs Voorhiet. Now, do you believe that Mr, Raycaond gor- rupted the virtue and chastity of both thess women? | Vor what purpose waa this charge made but to deprive | her ef her! friends, by degrading hor before the public, | ond thus force thei from herside? Tt requires a degree | of Girones# and moral courags surpassing that of ordi- | vary men to atand by friend under such circumstances; | aud the object of Mr. Forrest was what I have already | mated it to be Any human being, who ever dured | aerert ber innocence, was to be o ing in Nr, Forrest's matrinonia to be left as the v anlated by se be might in hie ins. Now, general charge that she assooiated with persona even. chorged with crime ig not mstained. Well, what other charge have we against Mee Forrest? That she was | adéicied to drinking, and smoxing seg Now, as to smoking secare. the learned ounsel raid that from the menner In which Mrs. Underwoed was cross-examined, that charge had felien to the ground. You wili bear in | d (bat Mra Underwood talked in dashingstarms of | the boxes of thoee severe that came to (he homw foe Mrs, | end thas and of course we bave not produced ber because we did Lot find her. This is Garvin's story now, I bave road to ye bat thie story was, when Chey were prepariog the nee for the Peunsylvauia Legisiatare, There are inconsistencies between theee two atories which * to you mort striking, as soon as L 1 eppear fo exbibit them. And Robert Garvin was ucable if inconsisvency in apy other way than come te account for th by stating that he suppreesed thie second story about Wut tthe time he ne examined before Mr. Se wick if tender pd regard for Mrs. Forrest; that he not wish (o asy anything which would fa. jure ber. One of the juy asked bim a very apposite Uuestion on this oconsion, and that war, “if he did aot (ante injore Mis. Forrest ia reepect to this tranenc hen, how jt bappered that he hed oniled up ® witness & ¥ { exbibited to Ker come evidences of the guilt ot Mra A very apposite question that was. Another yestion was ashed, to show that this man evidently sme bere with # falee and prepared etory, He did o eny, direcliy end pocitiveiy, that he sup- veeed t 3 of tenderness to Mra. Forevst, but Plea bi ahiemlion was called to the fot that, om the re by old ‘nderwood, who, you will remember, was the bouse- keeper, and never waited at table, and, consequently, never could have seen Mrs Forrest indulge asshe sweace but Mrs, Underwood says she used to drink, she know how much—wine, brandy, all sorts of of hor jaich testimony, I know, would, if tru», Counsel adm‘ta that she did not eweer it on the stand, but that she did «wear it : ir | ng, to ® very great ex- | bat ere called | a along the | TWO CENTS. PRICE ‘et. we proved that she never saw her | previous part of his direct examination, on thie very trial, he stated that he told that atory to Me. Bedgwiok, and he could not deny that be had done ee, and the reason shows that he had done #0, therefore. proving that this subterfuge was entirely a false apd one to which he was driven by the nrce-sitics the care, But let us sce, independently of what the jury asked, what evidence there is that, at the time ‘this man Garvin was making up chis a it wae desirous of keeping back anything, or he would we kept back anything which could have operated againet Mr Willis (Mr. O'Conor cited portions of Carvin's testimony relating to Captain Calcraft, Richard Willis, Mr. Wykefl, and as to the disorderly state of the house in Mr. Forrest's absence, and the commen remark, song the servante, and gencrally believed im, that Mr. Forrest wes greatly wronged.) What doce he meun by being greatly wronged? fle means that great Wrong. destruction to the peace ang honor of # husband; but not having got his courage pufticiently screwed ap | tothe sticking point to swear directly that any aot of absolute dishonor bad been perpetrated by Mr W. he was obliged to put iton the “common belief.” I Wee the “ifcben reputation,” Having uo other or beter testimony than thir witness, who was, at that time, de bus cf keeping beck anything which would opteste ice of Mrs. Kerreet, they have givon ws ef"? on business, Why, he y unwilling to give evidence of the la Forrest, whon he did He says, was ronrc gree of guilt on the part of Mra | Bove evidence in respect to Captain Calcratt sycuking of this dinner When they (Mra. Forrest and Captein Calerats) own to dinner, about rf wore for drinking. Tt was not Mrs. Vorrest took her venal beat et the table, DK | street. Coptain Crlorafe ent opponite the fire, ema av ber right hand. Mra. Forrest: had ® ohicken be- ture her, and was #0 much affected by drinking that he | cruld eénreely onrve it Ordinarily she was a very good carver, Mra. Forrest told me not to light the gas before dim= per, ag I usually did. I waited On tho table, and after dim- nor! wont down into the kitchen. Very soon, 1 wont up te fle din.nr-room to lichs the gas. ‘Tho door which opened from the hail into the dining-room was lock dM Feetepoke te mo shrough the door, and said she would hergelf. 1 Lighted it in the entry, and went back inte chen. Prosty moon, 8 entered t 8 ov look, they were both the derk—considerably ee, the Lnuspecced something, 1 went dining room through a pantry that conneats bee \ween the hall and the dining reom Aa Tentered, I Mis, Forrent balf lying, halt ritting, in Captain Caloret¥e Inp with ber arte on his breast and around his neck, ‘This is the witness who tells you that out of tenderness to Mrs. Forrest, when he was giving that testimony, he fuppreened this etory ebout recing Mr. Willis absolutely in the ect of adultery in the drawing-room Why, gen- Uemen, do you believe him? In it possible to alters bim t Iapprehend, gentlemen, that the contradiction om this single point in the testimony of the witness ia alone tuftcient, without any other observations onit, to com- vemp him Yeu ree that in this affidavit, he devowws bimeelf to awearing all that he can against Mr. Willie, aud he puts it very otrong. What did he meap in thie ufloavit with respect to Mr, Willis’ did be not mean te charge the commission of some gross impropriety © When he comes to testify here he says nothing about that circumstance, I mean he did not at first, till a oee- tain observation fell from the learned counsel. Hoe tela the story directly the reverse of the way he had before told it, but amounting to be sure to the very rame thing. Lnstead of the window being shut, as in the tirst state ment, it is open; instead of the room being dark, mow it is light; instead of his being unable to see inte the room, he was now able to see all that was going on. He went to the open window, and locked in, and, instead of Mr, Willis and Mrs Forrest keeping the window shut in fhe usual way. and keeping the sofa in the usual place, they had, with extreme caution, and most com- mendable liberality in the way of furnishing testimony against themselves, opened the window, so thet any perron might look in, and transferred the sofa over to a ccrner, where it waa very inconvenient to have it, imas- much as there was a Spanish painting there (and, in the course of @ very little motion, it must have been apt te go very hard with the Spanish painting), thus lasing themaeives in full view, for the purpose of being teati! sgainst. Why, they could have only done one thin more liberal, and that would be to have moved the sore outside of the door. Why, gentlemen, the atory itself te monstrous, improbable, and just the opposite of the story which he told before Mr. Bedgwick It is worth while to go over any of the circumstances wi might be shown for the purpose of proving to you that bis testime is not to be credited. He is contradicted, of course, by quite a number of the other witnesses directly, but his contradiction by himself is infinitely better tham contradiction by anybody elee. He is guilty of the most flagrant contradictions and inconsistencies, and I deem it of mo sijght importance toshow that these witmesses are not on!y false, but most evidently wilfully 60; amd when you consider how the witnesses have beom jet to- gether, and the fact that so many of th re wlitaly 1 wit nesses— these ser- What corrupt, you must say that th vants—s'amp the character of the whole trial, other evidence is there against Mr. Willis? Not satisfied with his own kitchen, Mr. Forrest hes invaded the kit- chen of Mr Nathaniel P. Willis, and picked up a mam there--the very counterpart cf Robert Garvin—to give au account of what he knew, and in which he devel a rhameful perversion of@ state of things—(one ste exhibited all (he amenitier, kindners, and tenderness of 6. cial intercourse between families under trying cireum- stencer, and between ladies who are in ill health)—fow the porpese of raising @ presumption against Mr. Write, that he was guilty of misconduct with Mra Fi on otber cecasions. Mr. John Kent informs us that on a particular evening, at wbout 10 or }1 o’clook, | Mz. N. P. Willis delivered to him a letter to carry to Mrs. Forrest; that on the receipt of that letter, or shortly af- terwarde, she must have come down to the house of Mr. Willis—come in without being let in by anybody, up stairs till sho reached the third story, in whiok | was in the habit of eleeping at the time she stayed with Mrs. Willis in the preceding summer—at a time when ne fuspicion existed in respect to N. P. Willis; that she re- | tired to that room in that quiet manner, and that subse- | quently, when he was going up end renohed the top, | of the stairs, he heard Mr. Willis, in the most cavalier inanper that could weil be imagined of any man who had thus got his neighbor's wife into his house, where his owm wife and his own family were,—in the most cavalier As repeat, aa he stalked out ‘of her bedroom, eay, “Good might, Bi dear,” loud Sie to be heard to a very considerable | distance ; and this Jobn Kent, who has been examined by the learned counsel before he came here, would have you inter that Mr. Willis visited the bed- | room of Mra. Forr and that he was guilty, of | course, of the last degree of delinquency, in going there. But on John Kent's cross-examiaation, Fx | will remember, gentlemen, that it appeared | this note requerting Mre. Forrest to come to the house ead by Mr. Willis to him in the presence of in her sick room, and that Mr. Willis desired n to weit to accompany Mrs. Forrest to the house. Now, | weuld ack you how that agrees with the idee tbat it was @ private appointment by which Mr. Willie | was to get Mra. Forrest to come to his house, with « mizht key, I suppose, steal to the door, steal up the stairs, get ell tke way up to that room which ehe for- merly cecvpied. and then commit this last delinquency, ond that yet Mr. Wiilis,as he was coming out of | room. tergettirg all the ceution which he had exer- dinthe miadie stage of the proceeding, shouti cavaiierly. “Good night, my dear? It seems tl there stages do not fit well together. L believe the emd is unlike the middle, and the middle unlike the begim- ning Mrs. Forrest steals up stairs at night, and steals away poobserved . but yet the letter of appofhtment to re Was delivered in the piecence of Mra nd the obj-et stated aloud by will the voice of Mr. W and the erime whieh must beye been ecmmnitied by Mr. Willis in the chetmber, is weund up completely, ay it ware, whem he + inetly, ‘Good night, my dew could hear bim who hed he round of the enunciation certainly for a witness whe astute counsel, I must atement slone must hea very peur relation of Mr Robert ugh be is notaconntrymen of bis for any- Robert Garvin toil us sturdily, comptly and directly, om the ques ion being put to him, that be was ap Irishman; Lue Mr. Joka Kent scorned the vulgar ides of allowing himself to be called am Irithman, He was too refined a person for that, so he raid he came from Kurcpe; and if apy body wished to know particulerly from what pert of Europe he bad come, why. it wae the county Tipperary; amd you would ' not know, unless you were better geographers than moet people, from whal part of the world John Kent came, for every body perhaps does not know that Tipperary te ip the “Green Lele.” John Kent, at all events, was doter- mined you should not know from him, but find out, es the eeying is, “by yourlarning ' Well suppose we take am other view of John Kent's story of this transaetion, on his own showl linean, without reapect to the testimony of thecthers I weuld ask you. gentlemen, was suoh s ‘hing ever heard ¢f as that a man who desires and is et | Lbercy to enjoy eexual intercourse with « lady who was | living wll alore end separate from her busband,as Mrs. berrest wos at that time in her own house, baving me companion there except her sister, who would probably be privy to her guilt. if rhe was a pervon of that shame- Weracharacter ae represented; how is it poss 1 aaj that » wan baving t facilities, would go throug! thor» artifioes to get the lady into a room ia the third ttoryof his own houre, risking detection im so many ways instend of quietly calling on ber himself in the night time, being quietly received at the door, and ae quietly let ont nyain? Why, is there not something Uctcriy preposterous in the very idea, taking the testi- mony cf John Kent himself? but when we come to refee t esiverce eqeinat him-—what ia it?) Why, Mrs. Vil is tye you that forseme months che was in extreme Ithewlih: she tells you (and the nurse confirms her stetement) that Mra. Forrest rendered very constant asietonce to her in her iilmess; you ore also informed {hat on that one occasion to which Kent refers Mra. Willie bad been unweilmeo very unwell for several deys that the vores war almost Worn out in attending he herself became feverish, uneasy and desirous in her condition are apt to be, of some friend being nees her; be wae anxious to have the presence of Mra Forrest, and arranged to have her; that nee | confer ted to it reluctently, detecmining at Lie very time, that Mea Ferrest sheuid not stay with ber; thar whem Min Forrest came she waa extremely unwell so (hat Dee nurse would not like to allow any other perton to have charge ef her, she, the nurse, being responsible fur Nr | safety; but that Mrs. Forrest spoke at the daor ot Mrs | Wiltis’e room, and was beard to speak of Mre Willis, thet | they made an arrangement that Mrs. Forrest st co to bed and be ready to rine whenever che ic | and that she accordingly retired to her room In the ware | story, as usual; that she was not waoted dating the bt and true enovgh did retire out of the Bouse ary | y in the morning, parsing out of te front deor and without bretkfant. Now, what # diaboiionl ovtrnge on all the relations of Life it ie Chetan net of hind- | ness of this description abould, by the vily tevtimony CONTINGRD ON FOURTH PAGE