The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1853-02-02


ter guarded and has been put, in its application to
cases here, upon broader or more precise compre
henson Of the philosophy Of evidence. This paper
ssdf The decisions q tie !, G' ~ St at. ,soa
Each State may regulate for itself the admission of
such writings in evidence. Until it shall be be done
the general rule must be in all Of them IL haseen
anditis binding in the courts Of the United States
In this deficient condition of the archives Of the
cathedral, without knowing how it has happened,
cannot say that any paper has been abstracted or
fraudulently added " serve such purpose as TINS
has done. But can say, from the proofs In this
cause that the archives Of the cathedral have been
too negligently kept for any paper in them OF pro-
vincal date to be received evidence without the
most cautious scrutiny into its authenticity The
must be rgidly complied with in respect to them, or
consequences may follow in Louisiana, which have
not hitherto been anticipated. Comprehendlng, as
they must do notices Of marriages births and deaths
they may be invoked TO guide disturb the descents
of property, or 10 fix and unHx relationship between
persons differently from that which has been general
ly recognized. My object in what / have hitherto
said coscerning this ecclesiastical paper, has been TO
an official register or a judicial proceeding.
In the condition in which she stood in that tribu
NAL shall what she there induced TO say to
Desgrange from disgraceful punishment, be relied
upon to overtun and outweigh all the other evidence
in the cause, Of her marriage with Clark his and
her repeated confessions of it to witnesses and his
recognition OF their offspring as his legitimate child
1t is remarkable too that this deposition well
others in the ecclesiastical record, confirms all the
facts related by Madame Despair. Her voyage from
New Orleans to the North--the object OF 1.-THE
time when it was made !; the arrest and imprsOn
ment of Desgrange for bigamy, his fight from New
Orleans, though not in the way stated by her; the
subsequent c0habitation of Clark and Zulime that
Clark and Zulime were in Philadelphia for several
months in the fall Of 1901 and spring Of 1902 under
circumstances involving familiar relations and inter
course; that they thought there was sufficient
cause for them to keep the marriage secret, Clark
having been told by counsel that a sentence of the
nullity Of Zulime's marriage with Desgrange must
be obtained before her marriage with him could be
afely proclaimed. Both parties haze repeatedly de-
clared that they were secretly married clark,
from the birth of the complainant until he died, isl
all Of has conduct to her, acted consistently 10Th such
declaration. He Frequently declared her to be his
laufM child. No one doubts that he made uiu, IN
whch he proclaimed her to be so, making her his UNI
rersal Rgdtee tchaerer may haze become of that uW
after his death. against all Of this erGience, there
is nothing but tie deposition n the ecclesiastical re-
cord tc'ch has been torcd IA eUtdeace IN this cause
will now briefly notice two other papers which
the defendants were permitted to evidence in
this in violation OF every rule for its admission
One of them is the record OF suit for alimony,
which it is said, was brought by the mother of the
complainant, against Desgrange, in 1906. The other
is procee ding by Mr. Davis, the guardian of the
complainant, against the executors Of Clark, for
maintenance during her infancy, in which she is
termed the natural child of Clark.
The petition in the first is in the usual formula to
get such case before the court but the facts averred
in it are not sworn to. II is signed by counsel in
behalf of the petitioner, but without more to show
that she had directed it, or that she was in any way
informed of ts contents II is dated about the time
of the compliments birth. The object Of the de-
PENDANTS in introducing this paper Is to show that
the mother of the complainant admitted herself in
no IN l.n tho If hos
after her alleged marriage with Clark. This cannot
be done. Snch paper would not be admissible in Il
suit against Zulime herself. 1t cannot then, be SO
in any other suit between other parties. The petit
ton, in such case, is not admissible in another suit
against the petitioner, because, not being sworn to-
its language is regarded as merely the suggestion Of
counsel, made for the purpose Of bringing in de-
PENDANT to answer. An answer in chancery, put in
under oath is receivable against the party who
to it but that the narrative part of bill in equity
or declaration at common law, can be used in ano
ther suit against the plaintiff in the first, has
never been decided. The reverse has repeatedly
been 1t would certainly not do in the artificial and
technical modes, in which rights prosecuted in
courts OF justice, to make answerabe for the man
ner in which they described or ayerred by coun-
sell If, then, the mother of Zulime would not be
bound in another suit by what is stated in the petit
ton OF the paper in question, it must be admitted
that the paper enormously used as evidence, TO
affect the rights Of her child in this suit.
It's only necessary to say concerning the statement
in the proceeding brought by Davis, that he denies
upon oath that he authorized his counsel TO say that
the complainant was the natural child of Cl.rk.
have now noticed every paper, which has been
brought into this st evidence. Ny views OF each
Of them sustained by cited authorities. They
show that the ecclesiastical record and every paper
in connection with it and the records for almony,
have been forced into this as evidence for the
defendants contrary to law.
Besides these papers, the defendants have no other
evidence to gainsay the proofs which the CON-
plainant has given of her fathers marriage with
her mother, her right to marry him when she did
SO, on account Of the bisamy Of Desgrange. There
is nothing in the record making it doubtful that
her father and mother repeatedly acknowledged
that she was their legitimate child. One wit
ness, and one only was called by the defendants
to prove that on one OCCASION Clark spoke OF her to
him as natural child. That was De Ia Croix. He
says that Clark spoke of her such to him. His tes
timony cannot be allowed to outweigh Clarks decla
rations to Bellechasse, Boisfontane, and Mrs. Har-
per, that she was the lawful child Of his marriage
with her mother, especially when this was said to
those witnesses contemporary with what De la
Crox says Clark said to him, and to all Of them, for
the same purpose. De Ia Croix says Clark told him
SO, when he asked him to become her tutor, and to
be of his executors to that will in which she was
called his legitimate child and universal legatee. The
other witnesses speak Of the time in connection
with that will. De la Croix says, he saw that will in
its envelopes Mrs. Harper and read it. She swears
that Clark spoke Of her in il as his legitimate child
and universal legatee. Clolk spoke dgoln OF that
life. Their testimony is on The record. II Is fnN po-
stire, direct, and particular, c,thof any dtcence
Jettcctn them. The credit and character Of those rf
aesSes are unimpeachcd. The defendants attempted
to assail them but these witnesses examined for that
purpose, and all of them declare that Beacosse
and Boisfontaiae cere PERSONS u truth, honor, and
standing No one has attempted to assail the vcra-
city of Mrs. Harper. De Ia CroiX's statement must
have been misunderstanding of Clark's language.
If not So still it must yield to the testimony Of three
witnesses to each Of whom Clark said at different
times in connection with his will that Myra was his
legitimate child, and TO two Of whom he admitted his
marriage with her mother.
There was but one way TO get rid Of the force Of
the compliments evidence in support Of her legti
macy II was to assa the integrity Of her witnesses.
The way in which that was attempted, have shown
in respect to Nesdames Despair and Cailavet II has
succeeded with the majority Of the judges who have
tried this cause with me. But | feel authorized to
say that in all of my experience in the profession,
have heard of witnesses 80 assahed before and
upon such illegal testimony; not insufficient, but in
admissbly introduced into this for that purpose
I.~xl nc..n 81 I Ia. ..Ix.r