New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1850-02-05


Css~ and Ref as TIC agent or he ess;e Of srs cAss
Whose viii day recorded here. Inc answer ts'theT
sveTs la Dsnel Ark pregloas . - year FOL hsd cS'
led OF business win Danei W. Coke q fas6eipciA sd
saa psrt-s had INFLATED large properly 81 oe name q
ARK o. I'm J-1e 1873 Ca-S eu,e-cd ITO pIraersa?
with N ceteldsnts, Gov and Rec VnO la slceee--c
70 the busness q 10 % partnership u GAIA todr 40
agreed 10 DIVIDE a. he property equally win NJ ~ 'f-i
byuse III BzyOa Road, al TIE prope~ lr-erei
entt.sd 70 ooe-'afc u A. arx's pToTey'y
l,se oeots sssre e31rr-ors Re-po1deuts were Sept
nHon ~aosrrzsse g. iss lzfge sea7ty u aaPos 7efv@
aids owner 81 ten n eolnes,a win lers ID cOa'@-
uus-e- r 1se ensTsssupl-s theT Hprlrd f0r re-pe
from -r- ei'p. wei To- me hsue. q AXIS es'se
faf t-2sse.ses. This Wa "a lsf The relg n re
% - p-crery. u10- u wnct vas bed n axe name
SD A. were 1.a1e he be-' sdvansgs. TIE l0e
sfstsae, ofoon pisrzot sso1i he VII = ri1 ~ c.
by Ref pronounced e - is % .io-n1ed ard
49, upc~- tie ssactoa ofsn can =. 0r s. a n Cara
WIS ftst - d. snd the whole - Req sod C1er
lader w i. svsr'ec - have eea ls' snd iessL J. 80
,s.a Alleged "a. C1sE cad GOT have lezaly rarned
LIuIa See CsfreTe who in'erH4ared IN D-cruoef l7si
MI Jerome De Grange, w5o We 7ag whea u yrs Tas
09n h4 ;hese parties nsd not -5-n been divorced iasi
sd Lsne after Myrss birtn 20 49, Oh liza had sued De
Grange for amOny, represcnrz heTsef ~ rs .ie s1e
r. 80 sued him f3- divorce TAca q sofce gra1,e1
Grange m4fred James Gsr6sre. VIA whom sre Aysd 81
dean ;hsl Dane. Csr- d g.. tvc yesrs sf'er ~
tae AIS ~ ~ wife, let u painAr really ne
ealcai-- %, Dane C.srs - Zsime Nee Csrr~Ts. .ne
lie g'lCsie, sot -oad not therefore a5e'i. ~ "oi
Aiss,o sysr'ea ia, Madam Carriers "a never gro.
with CAR. i- p
stated, Clark ~ss Paying az actresses 70 $3.50 - -
rsye impgia1Ol upon he chsrs,fsr .n'oreo y -
ca4rgs Of as cO1CeKion Mad Csrrere Ih-y -sly
nat y yrs WA ever feeogliLeo a. iLs es - 49,
{ ak uf aver that 10 1911 CoiOne DAVIS 10 "hl-s ,-
e-,-. Tor ne sior9rt a Myrs styling her tas ns.1,4
~ iegrnafe cnh she was ssO - ieoos.11e =. 49, ~.
All II Nkry C.ark TIE mother Of Dane bli res
e-g 80. ,bsf ne = child legitimate or ileg1'nae, o.
O.nte Cisrs They thsi they have never n,eposed
~ &C., 80 ~ ne All of Whiney and wife 1854 which
vas ouashed By ths eoTpsnan's themselves - we sl
.,aDst f5ern FOR h@ ;s funds alleged 10 have been s
gropnsed 20 mem, which "a- oecdedin inef iafol ~
he .g brought by Ref sgsins, Watney former n..rl
zoe vii Of Clark which va decided IN rec i.se
They declare ihs csrks properly wAs sold % Ae NOS
80. sebfs vhc5 ~ere very lsfge-ha 70 Dane. CoIe
signe Leng 400 They hat having homoogaied
-o.of b. ca led o. 10 account MS Court They pesd
ese probsis proceedings "a r> 1doI,l seglng ma my
he seged executors Ofhe viii Of s3 and before Judge
Prot Judge Of tho PROBATE Court another Of he executors
In eysrd 10 the spg ca ion Of comps to probate
The vii Of 1913 n thu Probate Colr Of NeSOfeans re-
snoodeus DENY hat the question % grsocuon AZ sed
30; hsl the case was nonsnied expressly o. inc
xrplnd that The applicants failed 20 appear sd prcse ter
aims A. 10 Toe alleged prejudice o. He Ju-to oi f'
bates they aver Ilsi the charge i si3i sce p,
roords u Court sgo. OF the Judges Of ne sae
n Louisiana The syenaeu % Interest in Judgcs MARTIN
Mathews also met by sn admission a. % ne iorm-T
who incompetent 10 act N ne cssc o. FAnsn Lll
utterly denied to Judge Mathews and lhsi even Il y
we're tue there were three other Judges on the supreme
Bench who could that justice done oonp!sinsnis
rn aver that he inmsOn Of TIE nef sia e. - prefa-
Court that the Circuit Court could hVf on 70 Toe iusdc-
on ~ iiHs C0vr, order % ooge defendants - nio
ne Probate Cour, unnecessary, as the respondents
Jfered all pleas 70 the jurisdiction IN order % yet
a decision Of this vexsuous matter.
This subs Auuay the answer o. Chew an ittL sTOfa
Tie amended ana Supplemental bin OF Game. and
Nvrs lark MS WIFE ed 10 1879 contains al tie slbssn-
al s-g aiOns OF Tire original bill bat re8ounccs s claims
luder c vii 81 1918 universal ega'ee and claims four
afh. OF Inc properly q. forosd heir The vii, however Is
In red AZ
and her rghi 10 inherit ourhihs OF Carks effects The
amended TILL concludes win certain uefrorsoes o de-
eudAuts 10 tIe manner in which they acquired Their
Tscn follow the names Of ths defendants who adopt
Rs '0rd SCI '''' Ii '' p"n'''i answer 'D'" ana
n i also alleged In one Of these answers thai II Daniel
Clark married. fraud IN ine paruee DO
coucesug and keeping score, aid marriage from a. e
world, and sad secrecy was vosuve Of the lave Of God
aud man.
AMER many tedious and complex inierocuiory proceed
.ngs, plaintiffs fled supplemental bh, IN which hey re-
-ie the facts Dt the cbse Of Gaines - Patiersp Inc
Judgment IN this case fully explains all IL iaeis Il as
tolows.
oolnsnt. Patterson np,n 'he h
aston ''bi Opposition an1 to .eni' on e here ~ ai on
value Of so to 'ant dollars s1i h- $40
%. s e D. .. of az, o..r psre tosas ie,soa
t. iass ' 'aie-s ana grrrs tai tho cause sha - e
~frli oae oou q" merits ani us touH beng nov e4
ra 81 20 ee.s he peri- foss aaa, decree sna oite
,.r ri H. Court convey a1d slfrraef qoss.ln comraa
n N, Csr Gacs All those ~ parcs' q nd 49, beng
s e,st. and TO ~hff he csaN e Under The sad Of l.i
sgnsr .ld esvsa. Il, csasese .isl coaau e. ?a.
ga. Of ~sTsH,y ..sn.t b.e oay az ei.ung uni,r
u further orirtv all irrt t- We lc.cnl'a,- ~ ~ @
rri b, reason cl h. being made ien5s1i ti- o-u.s
ION , 81 s ' vac s assa'. sa 40
On he appeal from THIS Judgment 10 ae Supreme Court
thai tribunR. rendered the FOL owing decision
- 80 49, -. =, -. ~, i. =, n. ~ a. III ~ ~. ~ =.
between p,Hei Cat 49, Lage Carer .ai at N'r'
hat bs Nyu ITO ior e. eer OF her nef ani eutei o.
ss aHh' OF b.. sse a'-f re eroo.s' e1naoa "a he VII q -
r,- ta tee g. eriy e>r d sasser Of ts 10
s a h -t r,i q 49,. LEGO All 5y ilo.e WHO bad no s
sa,hoID mate ct 81 ,s' the t'e' sy thea " tie
purchaser bf 'h- purchaser Tie defendant NJ Patterson
- a.. .,i i I'D t.i the sSc (. . :. p,rt of ,hs -
,adaat Care Patterson sb.a surrender TIE SAM s - d
ainons done he premises -fleaf
te ir,e and mandate of th' Cont " ue 1,a' , u L."
~ viriue Of this decision oomplsusn, declares that
recognizes and decreed To he legitimate child and
orced heir OF Damel Osfs as igelns1 al ne ctieuoss
lcoins ue same relation 10 eonPiSnSA's Is SaSf raj
Desendsns respond 10 Ibis issae. ,hat they
pound eya judgment sgAns, Patterson IN q rial IN Which
TOOK part that the " hoe proceedings Tie
d, Paterson lAso aud fraudulent intended
,osil0n upoa NE Court Thai wa. de'rev M part con
eu,cd Ia by said coupslnsns ana Charles Patterson A.
ag!l be evaced and proved IN ways and among -h
by betac' that said case q" submitted 10 toe C0ur 90
DAY, and that he following morning decree
brought Count IN te hsnd writing OF the counsel o. The
coclq ltlnanis-Nt \, Il Nhinn hsq in WHICH a. ait
ct ue decfee Of The COGr wac agreed between ue
palua1s and eEld faieTeon E ne the s4d Patterson,
should be lr possession Ol inc property claimed nom
by Complainant and should tak- appeal nom said
decree without security whaoscf thai IN fact the
c'nplAAanls have Always hitherto AAe~t>l mo SUI 10 a.
The said Patterson ENJOY the said property
= and lir respect have sad compaAns 10 ssls de-
,ree thar hey Again made Patterson defendant
the.r amended bill claiming the palo Of ground
sed decree reicned l 81 OF VII n facts ard many
Nhcr acts 81 fraud when s defendant claims the ia 20
sdduce Oh The tI Of Tins Ire declares make me De
rec mentioned by SAID compsiuaus as having been rem
tered against Charles Patterson, wholly T4 AID void 90
is DEFENDANT; " hch fraud Inns defends putt forth
ground OF defense IN the Il he bad eel
he same out lore tuy and parculaIy by OF specs
1cs Otherwise and b. that tins Court
gsie ths case upon IL own merits disTcl srug sad de-
rendered sEsnsi Charles Patterson trsL
Htc' aiss Gei0, 20 This defendant and secondly, be-
Tue foregoing plesdngs gvcn IN regular order to
the IN ce.r ard methodczl hgrL The repi.
cf compznanis hed 5,h March isf9 when The
then PAT al issue. Before Tie Of defeu-
iants rrSd dscust ion 10 whether The par
should 90 trial GA tie pleas 81 the
NJ "a aIs sg5Ialgei mat he pleas ovvTuied BY
he or, which was fll
NJ pssass read the rule OF tho Supreme Court allowing
The party 80 10 ui1l on The pleas
uss AekiHsg As the Pleas sDd suswer seem &c involve
ne lsin!s, val ny te whese case iogcher Pro
,eOd VIII L.
Amer heading The psAdnes The lesi.moay which vey
soNuninogs, opened. aud Mr.. WngM commenced
VSdna H. the exceptions TO ne testimony beng rescrrc
De decided BY he count before rendering Judgment on Pee
scfts
Al iAree oeloek, NJ Wnehi had finished bgt small
Ffanf a.r e