The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1850-02-04

VII OF 1911, ~ deprfvtng this Court OF jurisdiction
that the effect Of is judgment under the claim Of the
eopplanants would be- to set aside the proceedings
the Court Of Probatss Of the Parish Orleans which
Tis Judges Of the Circuit Court being divided in
opinion the case the demurrer went up the Su-
prems Court ofthe United States when Judge Mclean
at the January term In 1884, decidedl That the
plainants had the right to the defendants Jointly
In the osee that the bill not multifarious That
until the win set up was probatsd in the state Court
8. That the case wss proper for Chancery, and
that It did not belong exclusively to court flaw.
In July, lS44, Myrs Clark Gaines, the complainant
having lost her first husband and married General Ed
mond Pendleton Gaines, amended her bill conformaby
to the suggestions Of the Supreme Court complaining
that Caroline Barnes claimed . large portion OF the
property Of the late Daniel Clark BY virtue ofthe will OF
1871 They further aver that the Probsts Court re-
fused to probate will unless IL could be produced In
open court and that ssid court had jurisdiction Of
such will the complainants despsired of success BY
court and by reason the direct interest Of two Of the
judges Of the Supreme Court, Martin and Matthews
der tn. Viii Of ISL They Therefore discontinue their
probate proceedings They further slless that Mrs
Gaines entitled to one moiey Of Clarks estate BY
virtue Of . conveyance from her mother faid estate
having been acquired during the coverturs Of said
CLARK and wife. The claim Of complainant is to the
whole estate under the will of 1875 that she Is en-
titled to il as heir f there be no win she is en-
titled to half IN right of her mother and four fths
~ forced heir of her father.
same grounds rs In the former demurrer alleging that
the said bill dsregards the decision Of the Supreme
court ana on that the matters
set forth in the amended bill were not proper matters
for amendment Second, that NJ. H. Gardette's MRS.
Gs moiLer) marriage with Clark. is not shown to
time place that shs Is entitled the benent OF
the community Finally they set up the law Of hmits-
tion or prescription.
Then follow the pleas of the defendants They deny
all the allegations In the bill that Clark
the property mersted-tbs he ever married T. N.
Csrrere-thst Myrs Clark Gaines was his daughter
that be ever made any other will but that OF ISL
which sald viii VAS duly administered under the con
troll and jursdcton Of the Probate Court Of New Or
leans They declare that Y, ~ CarTiere, before the
birth OF Myra was married to jerome De Grange, and
said marriage bad not been dissolved at Myras birth
After these pleas come the answers Of defe ndsnes
First the snswsr Of Chew and R.lf In their answer
they aver that Daniel Clark died In August slSths
he made bis will In due form oflaw 10th May, lsIl;
and said win vas duly probatsd in 1913 and Relf and
cations IN plaintiffs bill expressly and in general
terms, denied. Mary Clark is sverred to have been
count che the universal heir, and she bad given
them power Of attorney TO Sell and administer the
property ssvissd to her by Clark Their acts
tors were fully approved by Mary Clark, whilst she
lived She died In Phils 1elpha in 1928 leaving WILL
appointing ph Reed her executor Reed cont ued
thew Relf agent the estate of Mrs Clark
whose will duly recorded here The further
avers that Daniel Clark previous to the year 1901 had
carried on business with Daniel w. Coke of Phiade
10 the name Of Clark. On 18th June, 1873 Clark
tered into part nership with the defendants Chew aud
Rsli who bad sueceeded to the business Of the old
partner hip OF Clark and Coxe and agreed TO divide
ell his property equally with them. except his house on
the Bayou read, and the property inherited by him
from Thomas Wilkins. Thus. defendants became sn.
titled TO ouethird OF sli Clsrh's Q property
Most OF the property held in the name Of Clark
vho,e debts were enormous Respondents we're kept
much embarrsssed by the large que nifty OF unproduc
tive lands owned by them In connection with Clark
In cobsequer of these nts they applied
for retptte from their sredters we'll for the
OF Clsrks sttste for themselves This was In 1914
The meeting Of creditors granted the pe and they
IL the la 70
the beet advantage The whole statement OF complain
spt about the will OF 1873 and lite destruction by Re
pronounced by the latter unfounded and fsse under
the ,spction Of an oath. The only will Of Clark
that q ISL and the whole conduct Of Re and Chew,
under that wi sverred to have been just aud legal
ls is then alleged that Clark could have legally
married Zvlime Nee Csrriere. who intermsrried, In
December l'e4 with Jerome DeGrspge, who was living
been diiorc.o that said Zulime after Myras birth TO
wit in 1905, bad fusd DeCrange for slimony. repre-
senng bsrssh ss his wife; and In 1sco sued him for
divorce which divorce granted subsequent TO the
birth of Myrs; and In 1865, said Mrs Ds0rapge mar
ri,d James Gsreette, with whom che lived till bis
death that Daniel Clark lived nve years after the
risge to Gsrdette and never In any way aged
the lady his wife that IL plsinsnt really the
daughter Of Daniel Clark by Zuiime Nee carrere she
will otherwise II IL ase averred that Madsm Car.
risre introduced into the fame society with
CLARK, and that at the time stated Clark paying
his addresses TO others. They repel the imputation
upon bic character involved In the charge o his
ntzion with Madam Csrriere. They deny thst Myra
recognized the legitimate child OF Clark
hut that In 1917. Colop. Davis In whose family
Myra raised, brought suit asainst them CLARK
tursi or lssma,e child she va. also 90 recognized
In the v Of Mary CLARK. the mother Of Daniel. But
respondents deny tbi. tha, she 10 child legit
mate OF eetimste, of Daniel Clark. They aver that
they have utsrposed any delay TO the setemsn
~ b suit In proof OF which, they refer 10 the suit Of
plsinspts themselves TO the suit sgsinst them for
the trust funds alleged to have been appropriated to
them which xss decided In their favor, 70 the suit
brought by Ref against whitney fJrmer husband Of
complainant for libel. In charging him with destroy
IN the will tf Iark which decided In
~. .ss, .ss,a,
the liquidation Of his dsbts. which vefs large
that 20 Daniel Cox aione teirg sl72tt0. They aver
that ayirg their accounts In the Probste
Court tf New Orlesps, they cannot be called TO
count 70 this Court They plead these probate pro-
eeedipss as 70, jud.'s alleging that they we're not ,r.
alleged Of the will Of 1873 and before Judge
Ptot Jadss Of the Probate Court another Of the
cutters 81 this tame pretended vill.
In regard TO the Application of compalnapts 20 pro
bate the viii Of 1918 In the Probate Court of Nev Or
lsns i.spcndsnts deny that the question % jurisde
txyrstsy the ground that the applicants failed 70
sppssr and their claims AZ 20 the alleged pre-
th.rss is ,lsndsr placed upon the records of the
uT sgsinst one cf the Judges Of the State ~ Loui
ksth.~r is also met BY sdmis,ion, TO the Tor.
~ho vss ipcc ppetsut TO sct In the of com.
panAst but 10 utterly denied .. TO Judge Matthews
and that even Il wsre true there we're three other
Jsosss On IN. supDs Bench, Who could ths, jus.
tee dsrs complsipspts They aver that the isti.
nation of the Unitsd states supreme Court that the
Circuit Court could hold TO the jurisdiction of this
IN order to obge DESCENDANTS 20 into the Pro-
bate Court VAS unnecessryss - the RESPONDENTS have
invited plsnsnt 20 20 into such court and have
offered To valve all pleas 20 the ufsdicton In order 70
get . dscition cf this vesatious matter.
The 10 pbstantislly the susver q chew and Ref
svcrn To and hlsd January, 1sss
The snsnd,d ard supplemental !bll Of y. ?. Gaines
and Nyra Clark hs vife flsd In 1sss contains s ths
substanus allegations ~ the orsinsi bill but
ces all claims under the vili % 1913 universal ees
tee and claims fcur-ffhs 81 the property ss forced
heir The shl however. is sstsd u be recosnzea n
rrsof Of the Legitimacy cf Myrs and her rights In
hert uf.hnhs OF tlsrke efects. The anne ndes ball
csreluces sith certain introgstor-s TO defendants
as TO the manner In shch they acquired their pro
perry.
Then follow the answers Of the defendants. which
adopt ID. grounds set forth In the principal answer o
chew and kelf
tie slso alleged, In enc Of these snsvers that n
Dsniei Csrk ever vas married, a. YES fraud in the
parties In coDc.apg aud keeping secret said marriage
,m all the world snd tsd secrecy violaiive Of the
lsvs Of God and N
AFTER many tedious snd ccmplsx interiooutory pro-
49,