The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-03-11

her evidence. How she could have heard the
ordinations or statements alluded TO from Clark,
u is impos lble 10 say rs she does not pretend thar
she ever met him In Europe. The solicitor for the
complainant has explained this part of her evl-
oence, by saying that she referred to her husband
who Ittt for France alter the preliminaries were
arranged. The plain grammatical construction OF
The sentence does not Justify this explanation; and
II Is somew hat remarkable that she did not make t
herth, when. IN subsequent deposition, she
ccmplaintd that her tesnmony had not been pro-
perry taken down Other corrections were made,
but nothing is SAID IN reference to this manifest
and rsipsbl~ contradiction ~. ~ w NN
That which Ienders the testimony OF witness
doubtful" says Gilbert, 10 his werk on evidence,
Up l50,) SIS the attestation of the several cir
cumstances, and yet no proof Of any one of these
circumstances. 10 fall in with what he attests.
This may render such witness (standing alone
without any assistant proof,) to be very much sus-
leotd, and there must be great confidence IN the
int, grty and v.rac''y OF the man, to believe many
circumstances IN one mans testimony, when, II 1t
were trur, there might be multitude OF concur
rent proofs 10 strengthen and confirm the evil
dence."
"Another thing that may render witness sus-
pecteo," copnnues this author, "is in the person
himself; as if he who were party to the crime,
swears for bis own safety or indemnity; or be q
relation or friend 10 The party" (Madame Callla-
vet, hike MadaD'e Despair, Is an aunt OF the COM
Ilainant.) ~. .
tits necessary, says Domat, d. 8, lit. VI. $685. No.
10 TO add To all btse rules In relation to proofs by
WIetkes. tba uug hi to consider their condition,
Their mabneis. lher estate, their conduct, their
lDtegrlD; Their reputation; It their honor has re-
ceivtd any bltmlsh by condemnation in a court
If judicsiure; II ,hey ate in condition TO tell the
ruth without egaId 10 the persons interested, or 1t
II is to be teareo that they under some engage
ment, or hbve some inclination TO favor one OF the
parties, as they arr trends or enemies to one CT
other of ihem; II their poverty or wants expose
the IN 70 the temptation Of giving such testimony
may be agreeable TO one Of the parties, ACCORDING
they have anything 10 fear or hope tor from him:
~ fhAi tee IN sffe " H..
aflectailoD; II the dispositions be contormabe Done
another, and net concerted; II the number OF the
witnesses. the conformity OF their deposlsions,,
common fame, and the probability OF the clIcuDn
stances confirm their evidence; If their variations,
their disagreement, their contradictions render
then suspected; II the consequence OF the facts be
such may require more exact consideration OF
what may render the Witnesses suspected, as IT,
criminal secutlcBs or II the facts be slight
that II is not necessary 10 be exact in the in
qury, as If the matter were only bare action OF
SANDER or defamation, IN quarrel between per-
sons Of a condition. Thus the right judg-
ment that is 10 be made of the regard which ought
TO be had 10 the depostons OF witnesses under all
these views, depends on the rules which have been.
explained, aud ON The prudence OF the judges to
make a reh, application OF them, according TO the
quality OF The facts AID the circumstances.
The Testimony OF B-llechasse, much reliedon,
is siDqularly Inconsistent with the friendly reia-
tons which existed between himself and the de-
iendsLt, Reit. tor many years after the death OF
Clark. As late lc22, he writes the most friendly
letters 10 Rtlt. IN which we lind not the remotest
alusiCn 20 The fraud, which, IN his deposition taker
in 1884, he alleges committed by the latter, In
suppressID2 The last will and testament oil Clark.
The solicitor Of the complainant, who last address
ed The court, enoeavored to explain TINS manifest
INCONSISTENCY, by saying. that Immediately after
the death Of Clark. Bellechasse could not have
known of The commission OF any fraud by Eef
and that the witness, IN speaking OF the suppression
Of The Will, gave not his own, but the language OF
Pilot. A shorl extract from the testimony will
show, al a glance. the error into which the solicit
tor has fallen :. PItot," says he, "as well as
Others, always spoke with the utmost indignation
OF the fraudulent suppression or destruction OF the
SAID last will ot 1873 and the fraudulent substtu-
tlon IN Its place, at the provisional will Of 1911,
all cf which We attributed to Interested villany"
And yet We find tins devoted and confidential
friend OF Clark, who thus sympathlzed in the in
dIgnatlon expressed at the disappearance Of the
will, remaining on terms OF cordial good will with
he author OF The .'vIllany" Ct which he complains,
and retortDg to no means. either by word or deed,
TO expose II, and thus vlRdicate the rights Of the
child of his deceased friend. He remains silent
upon the subJect until he called upon to give evil
dence on behalf ut the complainant, In 1884
Equally inconsisren with mis- conduct is the tes-
timony of Samuel b. Davis. Ii is difficult to be-
heve that the witness has disclosed all he knew
in reference TO whether the complainant was
ihe legitimate or Ill.gitimate child OF Daniel
Clark. From his peculiar position, as the imme-
date protector OF the CHILD, during the lifetime OF
The father, II 10 reasonable TO presume that he
possessed advantages for acquiring information
not enjoyed by the other witnesses In this record.
and yet he states nothing definite. We infer
from his evidence that his own belief was that she
was the legitimate child OF Clark; and yet we find
HIM keeping her In utter Ignorance Of the ciTcum-
stances OF her bliih and true parentage, anc
making no effort To assert her rights TO the larg
esiuie, which, according to a statement he re
ctiveo fI,m CLARK himself, was estimated
5000 On the 2i'h ct June, 1871, az curato
od ititBi OF Myia, then thirteen years OF age, h.
instituted, ~ the Frst Judicial District Court
this cry, sun tor alimony against Chew IL kelf
~ In. tba lad
on his behalf. by MessTs DAVIS aud Pierce, hi
attorneys. Myra Is expressly mentioned as I" tn
natural daughter ct Daniel Clark, acknowledge,
by HIM such" la his testimony, he de
clares that these words were never made use OF
with his knowl,cRe or consent. Ii IN difficult
believe that the attorneys who brought the SUI
would have introduced such an allegation In tn
petition. without authority. The testimony
HorstiODavis, one ot The attorneys, repels any sue
prtEumgiloD Both his testimony and that
Samuel Il. DAVIS, show clearly that the actio
was Instituted after consultation with Edwar
Livingston hnd II is quite unreasonable, II not al
soluirD absurd. 10 suppose that that dIstInguishe
juliet would have cuuns, lied The institution of sui
tor alimtby m.i.ly, ou behalf of legitimate chill
=. The testimony Of BoIsiontane, Bcllechasse, an
Mrs Harper, IN relation to the last will, are goo
only to show that CLARK himself made repeated d.
caisuons that Myra was his legitimate chill
from The vain, bcasiiul character OF the man, as
Is clearly portrayed la this record, entertainr
oonbt that be uiien made such declar atoms TO
lew Trends But we have the most conclusi,
evidence that hr made declarations to other friend
leading to diff rent Conclusion. His declaration
To- his intimate and particular friend DE la Crol
differ widely fom ihose made 10 Bo,s fontane. BE-
ltchasse, and Mrs Harper. The letters TO Cox
show, under his own hand, that so far from ev
having been married man, he was, as Ia
as loCS, ebdedvsfins 10 form a matrimonial allan
with Mas Cation, OF Baltimore, a grand daught
ct CHARLES Carroll Ambitious as he doubue
was, II eau hardly be believed that he ever Won
have CONTACTED MARRIAGE with that lady, If the
was the slightest nsk OF his being exposed to q
world AS bleanist. HIS letter to has sister
Epgand. aud he consultation with Mr. Mtzures
epel all ". sumption that he married man,
hatthe complainant was regarded by him in
other light then ~ has ,lle climate child. I
at Zullme TO Coke, in PhIladelph,
whe he informed her of the engagement OF Ga
10 Mes Cation, u coBhimstory OF this view OF
subj,ci. She rplleo that AZ could not be, sin
Clark had pronisso to marry her. Ia IL cesf
foveo, and indeed not disputed, that few d.