The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-04-01

msntin the my sister brought suit asanst
the name OF Jerome De Grange in the city court OF
Now rejecting all that Gsrdetts Is said to have said
ell that Madame Despair says OF the prosecution Of De
Orange Tar bgamy, and of the appearance of female
Ia New Orleans claiming De Grange for her husband
not being within the allowable limits Of hearsay test
mony Of two witnesses ia the family, to Mr. Clarks
proposals of marriage, Is such oorroborstion Of the
10 her presence to make basis broad enough receive
tho declarations of tbs father, and his aaect,onate
conclusive Of his marriage with her mother of her
legitimacy. Such declarations where there are proba-
ns srSunus OF marriage are the best PROOF IN aues-
what termed hssrsayas experience has shown to be
nsoesaary in cases OF doubt to establish conugal rse
lions and the Legitimacy of children Such declarations
unlike those which De In Croix says Mr. Clark msde
to him, have always been received to establish the leg
macy OF child with or without proof of marriage
and when there s In the positive testimony of
witness to marriage they conclusive proof OF eg
timscy.
What is urged against such conclusion in this case
The conduct Of the parties i'll not promugsting their
marriage and not occupying the house upon th-)r
return TO New Orleans In connection with that oon
duet the testimony Of De IA Crox that COL and Mrs
father knew nothing his marriage that the witnesses
Mr. Coke and Mr.. Hulngs, who were for Long time tn
intimates OF Mr. Cars-the former his partner in bus
uess-swear, to the best CT their belief that he
mared aud the Subsequent connection with Gsrdette
without dissolution Of the marriage with MIR Clark.
The hrst Is good objection until II has been reasonr
bly, accounted for. We do not mean accounted for
to make 1t proper but enough so to separate such co.
Madame Despair Declares when ths marriage
racted in Philadelphia, and afterwards upon their arr
net be disclosed on account Of Zunes previous mar
riage with De Grange. That legal proof must BIS OBJ
tanned OF the previous marriage Of De Grange and THAI
action would have to be brought by Zulne agains
bis name" This is substantially confirmed by Madama
Csillaret in her statement of the proposals for mar
riage by Mr. Clark and having been deferred for ths
reason given by Madame Despsu for Its conceamsnt -
is coucmed by what other Witnesses say, well
Madame Despair of the arrest and Imprisonment of De
Grange for bigamy, to which thcy all within
their knowledge and by the subsequent
in the city court against De Grange, (Record 200
meet the proceeding with the mode of proceeding IA
Louisiana to mpeach marriage th unable to con-
tract marriage Its existing application to De Grange and
what might then have bssn its application to Mrs Clark
her marriage in had been disclosed before
sentence of the nulty of her marriage with DeGrange
had been ebtaned and shall have facts, from which
motives for concexlment of n be inferred diverse
from and stronger than the usual suspicion of its hay
ing been caused BY an Illicit Intercourse 1t was not
cssssry to ths validity of the marriage Philadelphia
that sentence OF dissolution should have been rs pro-
OF the latter we'll by the law of Pennsylvania the
marriage with De Grange void from the beginning
;muossd uoe to Contract sSobsS thoua pruSspee
and decacy do until the fact is generally known as
not to be matter OF douot-or until 1t has been in
peachsd In judicial proceeding wherever that May be
done.
Mr. Clark probably knew what we have just stated,
concerning the validity of his marrage but from his
pride and temper his character has disclosed
his record, it not probable say natural thai
such man, anticipating his return to Louisiana woui3
resort to the course which pursued to keep his
feelings from being wounded until Judicial sentence
oyed by her before the Imposition Of De Grangews
speak of the fact and not of its propriey The latter
mas not our appreciation but We recognise what al OF 70
y the refuge OF error as it is OF crime, and that
men of the world shun more than anything else,
the exposure OF their olliss more especially such
ss tho world may think to be so, and bear
| Jog upon the honor Of the most delicate relation
men havs been situated Mr.. Cisrk Was, who has
died without disclosing as he did, in behalf OF Their
have been found to bear it, Such reflections would havo
| no weight with us unconneoted with tbs proof that
with such proof that they ara appropriate to rsp~sn
presumption Of iegmacy In this instance, arising from
not h
followed enbitered the rest OF this fathers fc and
unti deprived his child fhat Legitimate stand
log which he was most anxious to give her and which,
to have sed most heavily upon him Mt tn hour
ofhis death Boisfontane says in reply TO the third
CROSS int rrogaory spoke of her mother With great
rsspsct ana FIRE queny told after her marriage with
Gardette that he would have made his marriage with
her public IL that barrier had not been made, snd ire
quenty lamented to that had been iusd but that
she was bsmeless He said he would give Myra
step mother When, in 1918, he communicated to ms
he making his last will he showed great .snsi
biiity as to her boing declare legitimate in t While
aent he expired he in perfect possession OF his
Senses and parent could have manifested greater 81
lection than he did for her Nearly his last words wsre
Time with him was near Its end, and the truth
| told
IL ",
relied upon differs from that of every Other witness
Who has deposed to what Mr. Clark said to them repeat
edy of the legitimacy of his child.
We regard tho less for owithstsnding his intimacy
with Clark and the confidence which he had in De la
roxs suitableness to BIO the guardian Of Myra he says
Mr. Clark never spoke to him about her, except on the
ason when he asked to becoms his executor and
her tutor-Record 233, 234
This declaration to De la Crox surprising 1t to have
been made in connection with the OCCASION when he says
it made by Mr. Clark Is the testimony in the record
most relied upon to disprove the legitimacy OF Mrs
Gaines But it cannot be allowed excsed in weight
thu testimony OF several other Witnesses who
iotimsts with Mr.. Clark than De la Croix was who,
theirs to have had of his confidence and to
whom Mr. Clark spoke very differently of the same fact
single decaration directly the OF many to the
fact, may be made in such manner, by the same
person, as 70 disable from coming to conclusion CO.
latter associated with other proofs bearing upon the
point derived from otner persons stronger than sny
them, We have rule to guide in estimate Of
both, making the many prevail over tho one though
either, bring to opposite conclusion. The test
mony of De Ia Croix cannot stand the test of this rule
setting aside all that the other witneses say to the con
ary there is the oath Of witness who sRears to the
marriage which raises intendment of legitimacy IN
| the of,prng, conclusive until it has been dsprcved
Against such rulc suspicious doubts, not RESTING
upon proofs srong proofs of tho marriage must
not be INDUCED But for brief illustration OF the rule
take the CASE De IL Crox says: Mr.. Clark told
MIN, upoa only occasion he spoke him OF My
ra that che his natural child. Madame DespSu saYs
was present at the marriage of Mr. the
Their Of Myra Boisiontans says Mr. CLARK said to him
speaking Of ths mo her Of Mrs. Gaines that he would
have made his marriage with her public, but for her sub
ssquent so neotion with Gardette.
Now, where Is the weight Of proof? Does De Ia
Crcix's testimony exceed that Of the wiine@ who
TO the marriage and also Clarks declaration to
Bosontsins admitting It The contrary declarations
may ueutralze each other, In this aspect Of the
without lessening the positive.
In such N case we have not choice Of conclusions,
but must take that which the positive proves.
Hitherto the testimony OF De la Croix has been treated
as If II was altogether unexceponsble IL is not SO
There IA In II that cold hardness OF Of the world,
unmndfu of the relations of former friendship. whilst
10 regard them but little in unison with kind
ness, and not at all with the seriousness OF
truth. Such will not to what il false, but
they may speak what is not true, by indifference to
cxactnoss In what they do say. De la Crooks testimony
Is twice in the record taken at different tines and we
have II both In French and English No njustics is
by translation. Thew arc contradictory OF