The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-02-07

shown by the notsra Of Francisco Broutin
notary public In the city Of New Orleans and whose
show that in making the proof required by prsvou.
to marriage the important requisite Of the usual publ
cation Of the bsnns which would have detected the said
De Grange who about to commit the crime Oh biga
my, Was dispersed with, and the marriage eDsued.
Not long after this marriage, Mrs De Csrrsre dis
the time he married her and that his FIRST wife ives liv
log which first marriage took place In the city Of New
York in the year $780, an authentic certificate Of which
marriage given by tbs Catholic priest who celebrated
the nuptiAs and which Is dated In 1906 is also In
my possession but which not Of record
In the present suit for 1t discovered too late to u
troducothis defect, however, is amply cured by the
abundance OF proof OF said marriage which viii be found
OF record
De Grange, having been prosecuted for bigamy,
demned and thrown into prison. from which, however,
and the of his frat marriage having been clearly
proved Clark went to Philadelphia with the said Miss
De Csrrers In he married her secrety there
being no legal impeachment In the way, her first
risge was null and void, OBJ inito.
The motives which influenced Clark to resort to a
cret marriage are accounted for by several OF the wit
nesses, who knew him and his character wall none,
however need be assigned sought after they not
necessary to the Of the present csmant the
proof Of this marriage ample from the
adjustment of which, aside from all copjectures to
motives will result the triumph of Mrs Gaines, who
proves to be the only legitimate offspring Of the said
marriage.
The Of this private marriage was rgidy kept
who were present at the celebration. The parties
turned to New Orleans and In 1905 or 1906 the claim
Bosfontaiue OF the important witnesses in this
Preparations were msde for her birth BY Clark who
B. Davis and wife, to be rssed-sckno to them
then and at all time: after up to the day of his death
that she was his child and provided for her accordingly
Mr. and Mrs Davis also kept the secret The child
womanhood believing herself to be the daughter Of
her protectors until twenty four years
letter to Mr. Davis which developed her percentage
and condition; soon after which, she married Mr..
Whitney, of New York. and for the purpose looking
into her legal and birth rights proceeded to New Or
leans by way Of the Island OF Cuba where Joseph De-
this aUd em .hs sssnsd Ssr
father had died In 1875 that his will Of 1911 had been
proved and probated by which he had left his
whole estate to his mother and appointed Richard Re
and Beverly Chew his She learned from
several OF the old friends Of her father from her mother
rages, Sc that her father had made and executed
another Geographic will few weeks before his death
legitimate ohid and constituted her his universal heir
and egstee had revoked the will Of 1871 and appoint
last will had been lost destroyed and that the
tors under the will Of 1871 had taken possession Of her
fathers estate, and grossly msmanagedt all which cir
cumstancos have led to the present suit.
The mother Of Mrs. Gaines becoming dissatisfied with
MIR Clarks conduct towards her, (sse testimony re-
paired to Phsdelphia, and there, in the year 1907
1908 married Mr. Gardette under the esson,
ated BY the Of interested that her
the novel occurrence Of lady having three husbands
living ut the Same time only of whom In real
ity her lawful spouss andthe presents still more
| novel fact which has been clearly proved by many
highly credible Witnesses the correctness Of whose
timony is placed beyond all possible doubt, by com
this lady having acted In good faith in every instance
| Of marriage
am brought to the divsion and classification OF
the subject and herein propose to show and to estab
| lish-
First-The m.rrag. of Jerome De Grange to q lady
| In New York, about the year 1890.
Second-Hs marriage TO Miss De Carriere in New Or
leans about the year 1874 and that his first wife
| living at the time Of his second marriage.
Third-That the late Daniel Clark legally married
to the said Miss De Carrere in the city of Pha
in the year 1909 and that the present claimant the
only legitimate offspring of this marriage, and
quently, the forced heir Of the deceased.
Fourth-Thst she, tho said Mrs Gaines, al forced
hsr, Inherited the four-hhs Of the estate ls by her
said father he had endeavored to disinhsrl her
by the will of lsll the validity of which Is NOS, how
Fifth-That he the said Daniel Clark, did make his
last will short time before his death in the year
be his only legitimate child by which Ii. left her his
whole fortune with the exception OF few lsgacss and
sa s
the will Of 1911, which hss been probstsd; oil which be
bad right to do under the then existing laws Of the
asixthThat the said last win of 1919 was
tonly destroyed, aud old of 1911 substituted In
knowledged his heir, and under which Richard Ref
and Beverly Chow as executors took possession o his
estate which they have grossly misuanAged the greater
part Of which they have disposed of contrary law
even under the will Of 1871 AID no part Of witch they
have ever properly accounted for to any one or TO the
Sevsnth-That tho existence, contents and dsstruc-
ton or loss of said will OF 1918, being sstabShed the
validity acknowledged, and its requisites put into full
effect and operation, to the total snnhilston excu
sion OF everything which, has bsen done under the will
Of 1911, and the present claimant acknowledged As the
only rightful heir Of the said Daniel Clark.
EishthcTThas If doubt should exist as to the mar
private writing egtnatised the claimant, under the
Spanish laws which in force In Louisiana at the
l wish it to be distinctly understood that in treating
this case, shall conne myself to the laws and decons
which am satisfied govern It, and under when have
hesitation in saying It ought to be- and will be,
gained independent Of ths equity In favor Of the claim
ant which win be found to exist 10 bold relief In every
course Of the Investigation have adopted this course
because know that several of tho counsel engaged with
me will, By their arguments do much justice to the
equity side Of this important question than cspa
bic Of doing.
Proofs and arguments to ssta6iish the FIRST Point
be admitted to prove this point! They The gene
raj rule of evidence which requires that the best which
would tho first blush Of the case to require
written evdsnce Of this marriage; but IL will ibs seen
snss sn; rigid rule has given way under numerous d.
possible reasons many States Of the Union records
Of the celebraton Of marriages. not required by law
to be kept But suppose the contrary to be the law still
the In question does not under the decisions of the
highest State tribunals require written evidence Of
rage; ana In support OF thus position Will hret cio the
laws and decisions In Louisiana bearing directly
upon this than those Of any other State Article
l07 of the amended code OF Louisiana requires hst he
marriage must be celebrated in the of three
Witnesses Of full sge, and act be made Of the
celebration signed by the person who celebrates the
marriage, by the parties, and by the witnesses.n
These requisites would appear to be imperative and
Of course would exclude all parol evidence OF ceebr
ton Of marriage, and yet tho Supreme Court Of the
state has decided that The Louisiana Code docs not
declare null marriage, not preceded by license aud
not evidenced by Act signed by certain number OF
n n a M or dOpa
Act exclusive evidence of marriage These aNs rela
ting to forms and ceremonies directory to those alone
who are authorized to celebrate marriages"
marriages may be proved by any species of evidence
not prohibited by law which does net pre-suppose
higher species Of evidence in the power Of the party
Cohabitation and wife furnishes presumptive
evidence of preceding marriagen-l6 Louisiana
ports p l63
The Judge who delivered this opinion uses this strong
language Marriage i regarded by law in no other