The Express.
London, England, 1861-02-16 00:00:00

EXPRESS FROM PARIS.

PATERSON v. BONAPARTE.-JUDGMENT.

(TROY OCR OWN CORRESPONDENT.)
PARIS, FRIDAY EVENING.

At the sitting of the Tribunal of the First In-
stance to-day, the President, M. Benoit Champy,
delivered the following judgment :
The tribunal judging in the first resort,
Considering the demand against H. LH. Prince Napoleon
by Madame E. Paterson and J. Bonaparte, her son, has for
object the liquidation and distribution of the succession of
li.Lll. Prince Jerome, deceased, June 24, 1060 ;
That this dienuod is founded upon the quality which the
plaintiffs claim of legitimate wife and son of Prince Jerome,
with whom Mdme. E. Paterson is alleged to have contracted
marriage at Baltimore on Dec. 24, 1803 ;
Considering that among the grounds put forward as a
defence to this action, is one founded upon the authority
of fa chose fro.* (a previous final decision), that according
to the defence this authority results from two decisions of
the family council pronounced on July 4,1850, and July 5,
1860, which decisions admitted and proclaimed the nullity
of the marriage of Dec. 24, and its nonefficacity even with
regard to civil effects ;
That it is proper, in the first place, to consider the
merits of this ground of defence, because if it be well
founded it establishes a peremptory exception to the pre-
sent demand, and relieves the tribunal front thenecessity of
examining the other questions raised in the course of the
argument—whether the marriage was void as tainted with
claudastinity, whether Madame Paterson can claim the
benefit of "good faith" in the legal acceptetion of the
term, and what authority is due to the decrees of the 11
and 30 Ventose ;

And finally, whether the possession d 'Etat (status)
claimed by 31. Berryer's clients does not meet with •
manifest, energetic, and continuous contradiction in the
single fact of the second marriage contracted in 1807
by his Imperial Highness Prince Jerome and the Princess
Catherine of Wurtemburg, on the faith of the legal non-
existence of the first union, and whether therefore the
expressions importing relationship used towards Jerome
Paterson in the correspondence do not find their natural
explanation in the undoubted ties of blood which existed,
and more especially so, seeing that the recognition of this
possession d'Etat would have been, on the part of the chil-
dren of the second marriage, the negation of their own
legitimacy ;
Con►idering that by the terms of Art. 1,330 of the Code
Napoleon, legal presumption is especially connected with
the authority which the law attributes to the Aux jug& ;
That by the terms of Art. 1,351 of the same code, the
authority of the chose jugie prevails with regard to that
which has been the subject of • judgment ; that the thing de-
manded must be the same, and the deinand must be founded
upon the same cause and contested between the same parties
appearing in the same character ;
Considering that in order to determine whether the va-
rious conditions of identity exist in the present cause, it is
necessary to examine minutely the circumstances which
gave rise to the discussion in the family council, se well as
the conclusions taken before it, and upon which the jadg-
mente of 4th Ju1y,18.36, and sth July,lB6o, wore rendered;
Considering that the marriage of December 24, 18tH,
contracted at Baltimore between J. Bonaparte, brother of
the First Consul, and F.. Paterson was, it is true, celebrated
according to the forms and with the publicity required by
the local statutes ; but that it is proved that Jerome Bona-
parte was then only nineteen, and that the clauses of the
Code Napoleon relative to marriage had been promulgated
in the month of March preceding;
That according to Art. 3 of the code the laws concern-
ing the data and capacity of Frenchmen govern
Frenchmen abroad; and that, according to Art. 170,
two conditions were imposed to validate a marriage
contracted by • Frenchman in • foreign country—
the publications prescribed by Article 63, and the consent
of the parent., in conformity with Art. 148—neither of
which conditions were complied with in the present case ;
and so early as October, 1803, the French Minister in the
United States notified these legal dispositions to Jerome
Bonaparte, end also to Mr. Paterson, the father, and Geo.
Smith, • near relation of E. Paterson, and that these notifi-
cations did have the effect of breaking off the marriage in
I 18W ;

That, nevertheless, the project of marriage was suddenly
revived and realised on Dec. 21 of the same year ;

That it is even to be remarked that in the contract a sti-
pulation was inserted by which Jerome Bonaparte under-
took, in cam any doubt should ever be raised as to the va-
lidity of the manage either in the state of Maryland or in
France, to do and complete ►ll acts necessary to remove
difficulties, and to make the union a valid and perfect mar-
riage according to the forms and laws both of Maryland and
France ;

Considering that an authentic protest of Madame Mere
against the aforesaid marriage, dated3Ventose, year ELM,
was followed by two decrees of the Emperor Napoleon L,
dated 11 and 30 Ventage of the mine year ;

The first, prohibiting all officers of the (tat civil from re-
ceiving on their registers the transcription of the act of
celebration of the pretended marriage contracted by Prince
Jerome Bonaparte in a foreign country ;
The second, declaring that the said marriage was null
and void, that it could never produce any civil effects, and
that the children born or to be born of the said marriage
could never claim any right of relationship founded upon
that union ;

Considering that two years later, the marriage of hi.
Imperial Highness Prince Jerome Bonaparte with the
Prince*. Catherine of Wurtemburg wu celebrated in
Frame with all the formalities prescribed by law, sod that
on January 2, 1813, Madame E. Paterson claimed and
obtained from the General Assembly of Maryland an act
annulling the marriage which she had contracted in 1803
with Jerome Bousparte ; •

That in this state of things their Imperial Highnesses
Prince Napoleon and Princess Mathilde, his Oster, children
of the marriage of Jerome and the Princess Ostherine of
Wurtemburg, having learned that J. Paterson not only
seamed the name of Bonaparte, but claimed to be a legi-
timate son, by virtue of the marriage of Dec. 24,
brought an action for the purpose of establishing that J.
Paterson was not entitled to exercise any of the rights
appertaining to the legitimate issue of Pnnce Jerome and
that he and his descendants might be prohibited from using
the name of Bonaparte—the decree of 11 Ventoee remaining
in fo l force ;

That the family council, instituted by Art. 29 of the
statute of Jane 21, 1853, by virtue of the Soirees Consul.
teat of November 7, 1852, waa the only tribunal competent
to take cognisance of this action, and that it bad sovereign
jurisdiction on the question ;
That Jerome Paterson, as well in his own name as in
that of his son, recognising the competence of the family
council, maintained that the marriage of December 24 was
valid ; that the certificate of the marriage and the posxes-
xtoa Etat following it, established his legitimacy in the
most peremptory manner ; that subsidiarily he demanded
that in case the marriage should be declared void, it might
produce its civil effects in virtue of Arta. 201 and 202 of
the Cods Napoleon as • consequence of the "good faith "
at least the presumptive good faith—of the lady ;
That upon these conclusions thus taken and developed
by MM. Allen and Berryer in the name of the respective
parties, the family council decided on July 4, 1810, that
although the defendant must be held entitled to Lear the
name of Bonaparte, by which he had always been knows,
he had no right to the benefit of Arts. 201 and 202 of the
code ;

And this, because it did not appear from the facts and

- • -
circumstance* of the canoe that the defendant had a right
to avail himself of the aforesaid articles, and because the
marriage of 1803 had been made null and void by the de-
crees of II and 30 Voila., year XIII., even with regard
to children born and to be born ;

Considering that it is manifest thit in refusing to give
to the marriage of Dec. 24, 180:1, the value and effects of a
putative marriage, the family council necessarily, and s
fortiori, recognised and proclaimed the nullity of that mar-
rings
Considering it is true that this judgment is not binding
upon Yrs. Paterson, who was no party to it, but that a
second judgment against both her and her son Jerome Pater
son, Dow authorised to hearth. name of Bonaparte, was pro-
nounced on July 5, 1860; that an opposition to the removal
of the seals after the death of Prince Jerome having been
formed by them as claiming a right in the succession, the
family smocil was invested with cognisance of this new
difficulty—that the conclusions presented on behalf of

• It is worthy of remark that the court which so con-
scientiously recites a mew of facts irrelevant to its judg-
ment, carefully abstains from stating bete that this divorce
was obtained entirely for Mrs. Paterson 's benefit, sad
expressly reserved her own rights and those of her sou.