The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1850-02-09
THE GAINES CAUSE.
Mr.. Gaines'- Argument for tne Complainant.


Mr. Grymes began on Thurday, al 10 O'Clock.
Ile case is not changed from the aspect in which
1t wFs presented 10 the Court against Patters0n.
Inc first prop mon Of the defendants is, that
complainant having alleged a time in the bill at
which the marriage took place tie pro1f must cor
resi- 1nd with that allegation The Other allegations
OF the bill are sufficient II this on. were stricken
i'om the blil. The proofs inlT iHced by complain
ant bind the defendants 10 the time o the marriage
as lndica' ID by tho,e proofs. Authorities cited
THIS 's question Of practice, and regulated the
rules of the ChanceTy Court. We may now pro.
coed TO the proofs 10 establish the marriage at any
time prior TO the birth Of complainant, with the ne
cesssIy eoncor'ls1's to establish her exis nee as /
the offspring Of valid marriage. The answer
contn ms mater directly responsive TO the bill
except according to the belief Of defendau'q they
having no means Of IsrSonal knowledge, although
it he under oath The bill is suppor' ID by one wit
ness, without any corfoborAtng circumstances, and
is therefore aimed, rot being contIadic'ed under
cath. J. J. Marshall | Dana; Paige, AL; 6
id. 81 !; Stewart q Porter; J. ]. MaI-hall /
Hoffman, Oh Rep. Stewart d Porter; Young
81 COllyer, 2:3
The third proposition Of defendants was. that The
marriage win Clark wss not a legal one, Ps Des-
oranges wes lawfully married with Znlme prior 10
her alleged marriage with Clark. They rely upoA
! lst, the Ecclesiastical Record Of 1902 How far
is this record available tie defendants as evil
dence IL proves nothing beyond the fact that such
| proceeding as 1t indicates took place before a
to that extent, but il Is not.
1t is not in evidence that such tribunal was
authorized by the laws OF Spain for the government
of her then colony of Louisiana, for the trial of
individual charged with the crime of bigamy; nor
is il shown that the record has been kept by law
| full custodian Of the records or archives of the
| Church Of ST. Louis. For aught that appears, it
may have been entirely concocted within the last
four five years Its existence is FIRST made known
| to us last summer. Admit for the argument that
r1p 4.
which it purports is alleged to be-are the decla-
rations Of the witnesses then testifying to be used
evidence against the plaintiff in this suit? The
| first person testfyng there is Margaretta Barbara
| Zambee de Orsi, the same woman who was mar
| ried to the same Desgranges therein named, in the
city of New York, in the year 1880, as appears by
the certificate OF OBrien, the priest, now in the
record in this case. She says she was married to
Soumeyalliat, in Philadelphia, about eleven years
| ago. and that Mr. Bernardo and his wife were wit
nesses the deHt cal witnesses named in the certificate
| Of her marriage in New York to Desgranges at the
identical period named in her testimony. The next
| individual is Maria Yllar whose declarations are
Of no consequence to either party if they were true
| The next is Zullme Carriere. she was in situa-
| ton on that occasion to render her declarations
utterly inadmssble she was actuated by every
| possible motive to conceal her convictions Of the
| guilt OF her husband, whom she saw arraigned for
| a crime whose lightest penalty under the Spanish
law was death. He had been, she at first sup
him in honest faith ; he the father Of her
children.
So great VAS the terror universally felt by the
people in those days, at the possible death OF the
memberof ones family punishment for crime
which considered certain to entail inevitable
dishonor and disgrace, and every conceivable mis-
fortune upon every member of that family to the
la' ,st generaton-that it cannot be believed that
she would speak out her serious convictions if such
word would be the death-warrant OF Desgranges.
Moreover she had married Clark but few months
previous, under the made to her by ME.
Gardete, that he witness to the prior mar
rage of Desgranges with the very person who he
at that time soemnly denied that such marriage
Iiyin,, IN iris CIV ,rl,er b has resided Gr ,,o.rs
, and her testimony could have been taken had th,
defendants ', shed il TAutborities were cited tha
deno,itions taken in st between different narfi,s
and on a different isspe were NOT received az ev;
= | depce in anv other su;t Tho decree alone of
comnetent conrt ,,,,s adnixsible for cerl7;n nur
i noses The naxt ;s Dssan,yes himself Us co1,
PI ot bI baer aa,aJ =, ;oat h;,sIr ~,
4 - IL o1,,:iEi, - -, h. LII &;
. IL isIo.1; ~ - =;
Ii'S 9;,a -.
. NO. NJ alu 20
? Numerous numerous au'lol!tles,l Ine IlSt oniy PoS'N'
witness 10 lhe marriage is Nia1aiie wa u Despdu;