The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1848-02-14
was appointed because it that it wa: signed

neglect on the part Of the executors before alleged
Of said property to wit nearly nine years. interest on
ct six per cent amounting to about $40 600
said executors the 27th of August 1885, twenty-five
years after their appointment.
And here may we'll to refer to the title by which
found at 2s of the record where it will be seen that
hs purchased 1t from Gabriel Correjolles who pur-
and ss.psoss Of
ecutors Of Daniel Clark and agents and In TACT
Of his mother, Mary Clark 1t will be seen by an exsm
nation of this act OF purchase to be found ct 22
that several Of the important requisites TO %
In the sale of minors property as laid down n the sws
quenty the sale must be declared by this court null and
void, as has been done by the court below
r. sna ors nntsv than have done UPON
this testimony of Dusuau de IL Croix which somewhat
contradictory but nevertheless strongly In favor " the
of that of several other witnesses How his tss
ony, which has evidently been given under feelings
to b With bis conduct tho very d..
after the probate of the will Of 1871 when he went into
the Probate Court and swore 70 the contents Of Pei
ton setting forth that he had strong reasons to be-
sve and does verify believe that the Late Daniel Clarke
HIS made testament or codlc poeterior TO thtt which
dispositions whereof he thinks be interested and
whsreas 10 to be that tho double OF this last
will: whose existence was known BY several persons,
might have been deposited with any notary public in
this city" 60 See p 1917.
Here the strongest possible proof that he, Do la
4,
testimony p 2aa wherein he speaks Of Clarks visit
to him at his plantation to ask him to become one OF his
executors ana tutor to this female 60 and tnts
he called to Mr. Clark at his house on the Bayou
road He there found him ia his cabinet wh,re he had
oupsrt cas- de mort" Clark threw it down in pre-
sence Of deponsn and told him that 1t contained his
Woe e., Clark observed to deponent at the time he
showed him the packet which, he said contained his
will that, in case Of his death it would be found in
auuauh uht han thoxa AN
Does not this proceeding and this part of his testimo-
n.y. given n the Court Of Probates in april 1884, esta
crois did Ssiis1s that the will Of 1878 wa; Destroyed
He admits its existence very short time before Csrks
DEATH and yet when examined in this case In 1888 does
not rsoolect positively to what he Clark
died I'M declares too, that he had the will of
1919 having forgotten that 10 his first testimony he
Again. in his last testimony, he says that he knew
thing Of the existence Of second WILL except from what
Mr. Clark told him as to his intention of making one
gross perjury this but why does the memory Of this
witness who was intimate with Mr.. Clark to be
appointed the tutor Of his daughter prove to be
proven by ciroumstant,al evidence strong to
amount to positive proof for who will swear falsely
say then that SUFFICIENT proof to be found in the
record to show that he received hush money very
after his petition relative to the last will presented
to the Court of Probates at liz OF the record will be
found sale transfer from Rslf as executor So, to
Dc 10 Croix Of valuable contract for the digging out
Of one dollar and at p 49 viii bs seen that allow
ance Of ave thousand and thirty eight dollars made
to the said Croix for assuming the fuamsnt OF
that valuable contract! And at l74 sale from the
same to the same of fftyfve slaves both made very
after the proceedings in the Court Of Proostes
aforesaid and without order Of court and of course
contrary to law And further in the account of admi-
nstration rendered by Rf and Chew, on the 27th of
August 1888 mention Is made Of tho proceeds Of this
SALE in which Ref acknowledged the receipt OF $760 in
in cash. In the account, AL OF the record,
appears that fifty slaves sold to De Ia Croix
at the price Of their estimation in the inventory to wit
abatement
at 426 another sale to him Of twenty-five slaves for
$780, their value as Ia the inventory and
being in direct contravention Of the law which
ssrbes that the property shall not be sold for less than
indirectly charges Mr Relf with the destruction
Of his frsnds wiz snd In fsw days sfser becomes the
es.sy !" .T sa.psio.s 1 must under sas::
stanss., rest both upon the buyer and seller.
Preefs and .arssms.ts 10 esiassA the Seu.nih Point
II has been oontended, and NO doubt will again be
sxistsnos, caa have eject until probatsd This is
p so
that this point has besn settled by sotsry decision
Of the supreme Court Of Losisisns see 10 Louisiana
ever, Is not the fact on careful examination Of these
It will be that the dsoisions of the Supreme
particular the point 10 not toushed, although, by q
bundsr Of the the marginal note In the th
von dseOn IN tns o. IN;
their Understandings and legal knowledge.
The judge below incidentally decided that plaintiff
cannot claim, under will, without producing pro-
bate of the will 70 Law Is referred to in support Of
this opnionnons could BE- but it is to be presumed,
e. % ~ as
1887 of the new civil oss, which ssys that no testa
ment can have sset unisss 4 h been to the
within the stats or in which his principal estates e II
he died out Of the State the judge shall order the
proved in the GASES prescribed by law"
This is admitted to be general rule but can 1t be
seriously eontsndsd for moment that Il applies in the
instance Of lost viii Surely not. In the just
Cited IL not shown what kind Of will 1t that had
been lost and Il Inferred that was
:h @ 3 n & osPs hss srse
bssn msdt tf would hAvs been necessary before oral
q =: have S'.9 :stt:a Not
exists or 10 required BY Law to be made but the
CONTRARY, Il y proved ssas BY psrol testimony. See
testament or oodic shall be opened lift be sealed and
It must be acknewleed aud proved the declaration
q Of s Ssas: who must attest
entirely written, dgtsd and signed in the testator's
hand writing - having often seen him write and sign
curing hls hfssims' Abe amended code has the same
. therefore essr that the case reported and the pre-
s: =: ~ e = s .s..
with0ata rsmsey eithsr IN law or equity II this be
true, BY what process could the claimant pursue any
the oass las jurisdiction In actions for the
ty1Degeesty2 Louisiana Reports, p. 1876 Martins
nsporSs, new SsusN p. sH % MARTINS reports, New
Series, 305.
And this the only Kind Of action she resort TO-
in which her egitim.cy can be listed she may pursue
Element from thsm afer estabshins her heirshp in
other tribunal. a.
Il hss been decided in 10 Martins Reports THAT
any person interested In the aunulDg Of will the
eoton Of which has been ordered In the Court Of Pro-
bates may bring suit for that purpose In tho District
Court" Taking this opinion to be sound the old pro-
verb may be invoked which says that bad rule that
will not work both ways for II suit can be brought in
District Court to annul . will surely one may be
brought before the s tribunal to establish will but
rely strongly upon the principle, that mpossibiitee
canns b required Of sutor that there Is before
stated remedy In all cssss, and that In the present
the WI having bssn lost or destroyed cannot be pro-
bated. N.tt
should - id that the tssstor destroyed the
vtl AlnbG IT. sxlesnss having been proved clearly
nOt 10 somt Of Adoubt would for refer the
court 70 the testimony Of Pierre Baron Bosfontaine
which proves that the esator declared with his dying
breath toat this viii in the celebrated little black
trunk o. eass Can crsnity itself be made to believe
that he died pith falpshood upon his lips false
49, Nl~kA -A~ ia