The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-02-14

OOuhllereQ bumClenC-Wnerea6
srumsnt written by notary should not be witnessed
there would be proof Of Intention for in nehsr
Is it required that the declaration should b, signed by
the father. This reasoning may have the appearance
at the first blush of being hypercri.ica but there
DO no doubt OF its correctness The fact too Of this
coming completely within the rule laid down In
the latter part of this law bs lost sight Of
all the witnesses agree to the tessor declaration in
this will document of 1919 that this child was leeiti
mate it is where shown that he declared her in this
writing to be natural child therefore, the acknow-
lsdgmsnt that she was Legitimate one does not take the
case out OF the provisions Of this law.
The civil code Of 1908 p as, art 81, points out the
mode Of egitmatng natural children, thus Chill
dren born out Of marriage except those who born
from incestuous or adulterous connection may be e
gitimsted by the subsequent marriage of their father
lodged them for their children either before their
risge or by their contract Of marriage se This is
does not exclude evsrv other nor doss It repeal the
Spanish law just quoted Sse code Of 1908 g. art a.
The repeal is either express or implied y Is express
when 1t Is literally declared by subsequent law 1t Is
implied when the new law contains provisions contrary
TO- or irreconcilesbe WITH those Of the former law
Messrs Moreau and Carleton, who appointed, by
the Legislature Of Louisiana to translate the Parda
the amended code evidently thought It in force,
because, after pointing out the same mode Of lsgtima-
to .da Of
is abolished.n
1t is clear them that there was no express repeal OF
this law by the adoption Of the first code, and it Is
equally clear tina. there repeal BY Implication
but the question has been dehutivey settled by several
by the statute OF 1928 SEQ Louisiana Reports APT.
The general repesing law of 1928 applies only to the
at the time of the passage Of that act leaving the
visions Of our own Legislative acts still in force"
ing been in force In Louisiana until the repeating act Of
1898. the Court will recognise it in relation to cases
arising under the of span requiring
"statutes, in pari terra, should be construed to-
gether order to ascertain the meaning of the egsa-
tor."-Ib. p. l62.
Prior laws are not repealed by subsequent ones
less BY positive enactment or clear repugnsncy In their
respective provisions"
Is Louisiana Reports D. I06-"T The Civil Code of 1908
is digest of the civil laws which in force in Lou
sans and the of them did not repeal the
Spanish jurisprudsnos"
The legislature, finding that the Supreme Court had
had not been repealed it determined that general
repeating act should be passed which was DONE and
But suppose, for q moment, that there should be q
doubt ~ to the marriage Of Clark to the mother of
right Of father, (under the Spanish laws which have
been already shown to have been In force in the State of
Lou.iana at the time Of the death Of Clark who has
ME- Clarks having done this in the lost destroyed
will of 1919 See decision In Louisiana Reports, D.
26s in which the heirs Of the said Daniel Clark in
erested concerned the marginal note of which
thus Under the laws of Spain natural fathers who
have legitimate ISSUE May dispose Of all part
their estate In favor Of their natural children And
on record that the said Clark had not acknowledged
to be his legitimate child and left her his sole
heiress and lsgatee
Thus ends the spsciaes of this i'm ,ortant case but
cannot close my remarks without INDUCING in few
general reflections and deductions which have
cation. Every member of the Court must have seen
less othe many publications touching this
roversy which have made their appearance In the pub
lie prints from extremity of the Union the other
for the last five or six years. from which almost every
Rnd Of n der
Of one) has often proved fatal In the lower Courts
just and legal claims In the instance before U.S. the
claimant from the first moment of the discovery of her
real condition and rights has had to contend SINGLE
handed against all the prejudices which unver-
sally brought to bear upon what is commonly called
suit against community; to which may be added the
influence Of several lsrss and re.peGtes seuie. rss
personally charged by the claimant with having been
guilty Of gross negligence in the management Of the ss
ing been guilty Of fraud corruption and crime 10 it to
be wondered At them that she could ind but few sdvo
in the q =. ess
Of time, which regulates all things discovery Followed
discovery proof followed proof until the injured party
in the very first that could be brought to trial be-
fore impartial tribunal gained signal victory and
it is before this honorable Court, for decision in
particularly those In equity which occupies elevation
never to be approached BY local or preudces
by the numerous Defendants and others in
defeating the claims Of my client has been brought to
bear upon the CASE By publications and
that the ingenuity Of the parties could invent Even
the manner Of the claimant in prosecuting her rights
because she was compelled to 80 into the Courts to aid
her counsel by furnishing facts that she alone by her
dustry discovered has been most cruelty and contemp
by arrasnsd as legitimate grounds for defeating her
That peculiarly her position the novelty of
her CASE have her before the public In
attitude to be occupied by females readily admit but
is this circumstance to form basis Of Defence which
to operate az defeat Of her legal rights from the pos
session Of which she has long been debarred Surely
not when the question is to be decided by impartial
judicial tribunal.
important verdicts she has gainsd-one toe, before
jury has been we'll calculated to hur back the poisoned
darts intended for her BOSOM against the braZen FORE
heads of those unmany assassins of female character
talent and philosophy.
If it should be asked, how it happened that this i'm
portant secret Of the psrentage &c., client should
have been kept for some fifteen years, when so many
knew IT. would answer it. BY inqurins why 1t happen
ed that the known heirs of Mrs Clark hs mother Of
Daniel Clsrk( whose will probated in Philadelphia,
whore some Of them lived in the year 1873 pro-
teen years alter it was publicly known who they wers
and yet this the fact for Ihsve myself and used
the record.
The friends OF the claimant well the heirs of the
mother, led to believe from SOURCE that the
estate Of the deceased nsolvent and that If they
msdded with It, they would become responsible for its
debts and thereby involve themselves beyond redemp
into the matter it did not take long to discover that an
estate, now worth from five to six millions Of dollars,
had remained in the hands of executors managed and
sold by them Ia their own way for twentyodd years,
without account of their administration ever having
been rendered to the proper legal tribunal in any
other manner Now, tits clear that of these three ap
psrsnty Mysterious and certainly points
facts In this matter the in which my client nvolv
cd the most essy accounted for she had friend so
exclusively interested in her fate (cavs Bslleohas
see his testimony to come out with the truth brave
the influence of those who in possession of the
estate and thereby inure themselves in Of failure,
beyond recovery.
But accident has favored the innocent and Injured
the immutsbe principles Of Justice will sustain her lau
dsbls efforts and consign the guilty to the punshment
they so richly merit.
testimony Of record In this case, for moment doubt
that the deceased at least thought the claimant be
his child and that 1t his earnest nay dying request
and order that she should inherit his esste Surely
not for parent could have expressed anxious
socitude such subject, than, Is proved he did
Then his will ought certainly to be obey for who had
great right to decide upon the In which his
property should be disposed Of himself! Is 1t
just, Is It law, that by combination Of frauds and de-
IN All he