The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-02-11
THE GAINES CASE.
Conclusion Of Mr.. GRYMEs's Argunse'

CO2CLnSlOH Of MIR. ORYMESS A2gHnseiU. |
Mr. GRYMEs resumed his argument on Satur-
day, 9th inst.
We were yesterday discussing the plea of pre-
scription. We propose to prove that the success
sion of Daniel Clark was not vacant estate, and
that prescription did not begin to till after the
majority of complainant. From the moment that
Mrs. Clark claimed it, heir and legatee 1t ceased
to be vacant estate.
[Mr. Duncan said he feared he had been misunder-
stood. His proposition was, that the estate was va
cant as to Mrs. Gaines-not that the estate itself
vacant
Mr.. G. said he could not understand this distinc-
ton he knew Of no authority to bear out this doc
trne. Code of 1905 p l72, art. 1lS. An estate
is said to be vacant, when person claims its pos
session, either as heir or under any other title.
We have shown that vacant estate Is one
claimed by no one, either heir or legatee. The
only question, then, is, Was this estate unclaimed
by any one? Old Code, p. 1922 art "a, 70, II.
The succession is accepted when the heir or ega-
tee does any act which he only perform heir
| this is tact acceptance. 1t is express, when in
some written instrument he assumes to be the heir
or legatee. Did Mrs Clark accept the succession
He examined the act Of attorney in favor Of Relf
/ and Chew, in which she expressly declares herself
the heir and legatee OF her son, and authorizing
| them to take possession of his estate.
In the account current between Cox and Relf d
| Chew, Mr.. Cox charges moneys paid during the
| year 1914 to Mrs. Clark. Reads the deed OF sale
| from Ref 81 Chew, as executors and agents, and
| for themselves to Cox of half the Maison Rouge
| claim. he cited authorities to prove that these
acts amounted to an acceptance of the succession
| That fact being established, the question comes
| up, When did prescription commence We say
| the defendants can only claim its protection from
1920, the time OF their purchase but Mrs. Gaines
was minor up to 1928, or 7, the Court may
| determine. The Court is to ascertain when COM
| plainant became OF age ; some of the witnesses
L think she horn in 1871 ntiferg others
| again. in 1906. | will take either period. If she
| was OF age in 1929, then, for the first time, pre-
scription began to run--and this is admitting that
| Mrs. Clark was in possession. We had 20 years
from 1928 to make our claim against anybody.
This suit was commenced in 1S36-eeven years
after she OF age. She was absentee, and
the shortest prescription against her is that o
twenty years. They cited in this suit long
| before the prescription had accrued
The counsel have talked good deal about the
partnership between Clark and Relf & Chew. Ia
lS4l the articles were first published. They were
set up by Relf u Chew in their answer in 1915.
There is allegation in the bill that Relf u
| Chew took possession of all the papers. of Clark
They were, fact, entitled to them, as executors
| Their answer does not explain where these articles
were found-whether among his papers or theirs
| They bear date only few weeks before his death
| In that paper it is stated that he is to furnish
schedule OF all the lands which to go into th'
partnership; and second, neither of the parties il
| d d
, tain amount which is left in blank there is to b.
a schedule of the debts of Clark, which are to b
paid by the concern. But these schedules wer
never exhibited. They were signed with these i'm
projections. Is it not more probable that these al
tcles still in the possession Of Clark, not yC
: delivered, because not fully executed
This is conditional contract, not executes
. The basis OF the agreement determined; b
d the particulars not fully arranged and Il
death OF CLARK put stop to the entire busines
= But none OF the property claimed in this suit w
n | intended to be included IN this partnership. IL
property is limited to that held by Clark in e.
l ton with Cox, and not the individual property
Clark. Not an OF the land now claimed
\ embraced in these articles. The sale of the Ma
! son Rouge claim is the only one made by Reif (
|, | Chew in their names; but this laud original
belonged to Clark and Cox, and Cox, in purchasiu
it, required the warranty of Relf & Chew.
There is another reason why these articles mu
be rejected. There is material alteration, evIden
ly made alter their execution, and not accounted 70
| The addenda that the Henderson planta ju
= bought by Clark was not included in the partne
,e ship, was not on the paper when signed, but mu
have been added after, and there is proof whe
IS it was inserted. Authorities cited This vitiat
the deed.
The seventh proposition of defendants was Il
: homologation OF the executors accounts by Il
y Probate Court. He cited II Rob, 12O, Bal
s win Carleton to establish the right of the min
le to open such Judgment l.. R., 147. The e
n ecutor who presents his accounts, ard prays for
d discharge must cite the heirs. But in 1889, wht
ID the executors filed the accounts in the Proba
- Court this Court had already jurisdiction of Il
ma matter, and it could not be deprived of its urlsd
, tion in the manner sought here.
We have attempted to reply to the arguments
the gentlemen. In the range Of their desulto
he arguments thought discovered the prop
4 sitions. which have answered. We think v
have shown the status of the complainant, that
- equities exist against her. that prescription h
ever matured to bar her claim, and that she is E
+ titled to recover.
Judge Mckinley gave notice that the Cou
would hear no more cases till this was decide
IA As it will occupy many days to read all the autho
= ties cited, decree cannot be expected immediatel
lst TExAs-A Joint Committee on indian Relation
I ofthe Legislature of Texas, report that within t
past year. there have been, of the citizens of tn
ID State Ill killed by Indians, wounded, and
St carried into captivity.
IN The report of the Auditor and Comptroller of I
i State, recently made to the Legislature,
VI session, gives full and detailed description of t
1 character and value Of the outstanding liabilities
the late Republic of Texas, from which it appea
that the ostensible debt, including interest," is ST.
O55,694 II cents, and the par value of the saI
sw S5,60O,696. This includes the total debt that
m. presented for settlement, as well that which
we been filed.
ST Thennovement in Washington City, having
u view the settlement of the boundary line betwe
= Texas and New Mexico, is beginning to elicit sol
~ very decided expressions. The Galveston Journ
" of the 7th, says:
=, Texas will not submit to be despoiIed of a
fSG portion of this territory. And, if needs be- she
ETY. resist the attempt to those extremites viii
n injustice and oppression impose as duties upon
- sovereign people who know their rights, al
knowing, dare maintain them' Up to this d.
, however, we are satisfied that abiding confder
' prevails throughout Texas, that this wrong, thou
it may be threatened, will not and cannot be CT
summated.n
OPERATION OF THE NAVIGATION AcT.-1
Boston Traveller of the 81 says: :" The stean
Niagara, just arrived here from Liverpool, is FL
,b- with French, German and British goods. This
the first arrival in the United States under the
act Navigation Act The steamer has 1860 packag
the largest cargo ever received at this port ant