New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1856-07-26

piSops crIsvyJsv ~ a. - 10 have received INFORM ..
i'm on Inst point fo pesecs hvag :. .ue Ss ' sv;.
Fenit and am not clesr upon ,ns u s,sts that
s..,hiro more bsd been communfc:'ed 70 mem %sa
80, Jssnne when she lived st s.. Guors, naa 10"
+" A child by q person nsued Fenie
come now to the considerst,n Of TIE do;nGenSiT
evidence, and the determinson OF ,ns iuS'rsl
~ h;x All the proofs are 10 be tested IN tneu
Sssht and estimate II is an established maA aIat
Il always in favor Of marriage. Seesu
nan ". Powell, / ADD. X. Sc Ia the Iuls' i.Ht;ss
ruuptive evidences as weu as N Ias 4 not 20 re-
1870 or humanity Us to rject st9i,iy tne cisnT
Charity and the sppess OF helpless Pnaasxo, "a
,ssnmr,ti ION OF innoc, noe is one OF those sPeca G
YYured. The mere cohabitstion OIL Two s,Ss, of the
nhs, sct.r OF the coonsction affords an lnIerenos
,nsr;sSe. psope are presumed 20 DC moral ,a'Ss'
sban immaal. Taylor Va Taylor, Lse zAI e.
too, where fistion . proved, egnM1SS Tabhsck on
S.cce,,ors, 2is-s0) The renoteness 81 toe enan ~,
The force of the presumption. Where the EVEN
!. I'D and the psi ties are dead, and where gu
nav have destroyed the hey to The truth, Presup
with rolling force i%pel ,ns Viii b the law
L. g. the protection Of mac. Piers vs. f'es, "
the House of Lords, CLARK and fney.l amo p.S
had Long been in oLcubiosge, ana Oh tne Is
h;,,h M child ii Ia alleged we're married In I y!
= cis,ovSnap. No license, however, was shown' anu
The ri; hoo deposed that he had never rtn.eo ca,'
Six wears afterward the parties were formsny u.,
the woman being described by Der maiden nauie |"
child born between the alleged anu sM tue Of the wife
10 hos ma;der name. Still the House decidea
tbat the presumption in favor Oh mau'ago
was not ipyafdated. The House seemed 70 aaoP. inc
doctrine of Lord Lyi ohurst motifs vs. ns = 10
Tightly to be repeed it is not to be 6foken 10 uR,n
9. oS shaken by mere balance of proba oinsy' Inc
evidence for the purpose Of repellng mast DC
strong. distinct, satisfactory and conc'usNe. VI
a. Lord Cottenham stated the proposition, pre-
snmntion of this sort in favor Of marriage eau only
be negatived by dsprOvng every reasouaoe PoS !
Z" It's In Fenton vs. Reed, 4Johns K 80, the 81,
preme Cour of this State held that where parties had
be- married during the lifetime Of the wifes hrst hu,-
hand and continued to cohabit otter hs death, though
tbe msrrisge at its inception was void, yes al * sue
des,h az the first husband new contract mget Dc in
fer,ed nom cohabn alton and population. 10 otan VS.
Peck Hill. $40. child born ten osys oeao &c. ~
rage was held to be legitimate, though there was no
svdence of nervous cohabitati0n IS husband anu WIG
The presumption of marriage acts with the Greater
force where children alone are Interested lu suou
the Ecclesiastical Courts OF Eng, ,Ic Havo
Va Brown, Lee, 27l.) Sir William Scott says tnat
atbe law Is at all tmrs very unwilling to oastarcile
cbSren:p and that II reputation mas exis'ea DOW
.wsys the eonclas YOU'D YOU'D 0e isS That dsn
suished civilian, D'Aguesseau, says; Inc question
: oS m.r,ia,e should be examined in different man
ner VIII, II concerns the velocity OF the enlargement
between the contracting parties the nselyes, ana
when Il concerns the statns Of their children" The
same pin ple peryaded Freoea laiisprudeh;e uusu
il was incorporated in the Code Napoleon Art. IVA
1877 l. /, tit s. sec. o0s The frencn law o, Tue u.hs
nv which hi. csse ia to be tried is very similar to the
comm on law in the large charity AMI humanity OF us
provisions.
The esserce of the marriage contract Is consent;
words and forms but the external indie atoms Oh
this agreement, and have nothing TO do VITA It's va
L.. lAn n m s4(n
mo lint adds Lothing to the intrinsic force and
sabcty of the obligation. 10 the s'ghS OF Hod, Tue
vital power of the Institution resides In the mutual
covenant spgly. 1t consists in the present cocseni
Cb.rsby the parties ACCEPT each other as husband
and wife, whether by words expressly or taci.ly 6y
marital cohab stion, or Acknowledgment" Stars
Justi, l. lit g. g. The proof OF the existence
Of marriage depends largely, however, on the forms
iape could be contracted without any foimaliles, by
the mt agreement Of the parties and its proof there
fore drawn from exterior sigos Cohaoitation as
husband and wife was the ordinary evidence INVOKED
for its judicial establishment. By the canon law, con-
sent alone the essence Of the contract, and this
has been the rule in every civilized and Christian
community, -pt as modified by positive regulation
The public soemnity, even when prescnoee, was 3ny
promises to marry, if followed by enjoyment OF the
privileges of marriage, were sustained as wand con-
tracts. Dslrymple We. DaLymple, hagg Z. X. 81
Manage was presumed from cohabltat ON, undsr the
canon law throughout ChIistendom, until the Council
of Trept the presence of priest and three
witnesses aid the preservation OF registers OF mar.
rsge in al the parishes Tins vas but an ecciesias uc
r, gulsop but it was confirmed in France by the ordi
nance of Bois in 1879. When, about 1900 that ordi
nance went into effect marriage was no longer pre-
sumed merely from eohabitation where the parties
we've living and could point to the time and place ofhe
celebration. Still, there was no rule limiting the
establishment of the marriage to evidence from the
register and by ordinance Of 1861 and successive de-
cisions under IT, that where the parents were deceased
H., IL As,- -
actual celebration If marriage provided the fac. itself
reasonably established by other testimony Toe
law stood thus until, by the edict Of Louis XVI, in
1857 the CONSTIPATION If 1871, and tho Act of the
National Assembly in 1872, marriage was again recog.
nized merely q civil contracts the Necessity Of
religious solemhities was dispensed with, and although
certain public forms were prescribed they we're not
made essential 10 the validity Of the contract except
in enumerated cases. Touiier, l. Tit s, sect. sol
The Code Crvile finally Introduced provisions regulat
ing the mode Of proof Under the Code, ithe acts of
birth did not stand in the way, there was presump
ton that the parents were legally united Dunsrtin,
born before the Code and his 10 to be illus.
Isted by previous deciions. The most famous of
these Is the one in which tho celebrated Coohn was
conspicuous. Tho children of Bsrthelemi Bourgelat
son Of Pierre Bourgeat and an Italian woman, made
claim Of succession to the estate of their grandfather.
No act Of his marriage could be produced, nor
was it indicated where the nit, was psfor ned,
although the plsce where the parties FIRST met,
and subsequently lived, was proved. Toe mother Of
Barthe'emi had, while enceinte, submitted 10 be
token toward bngin hospital unchsste females,
without any resistance until the last moment when
she declared that she was married, and exhibiteda
paper in Italian, which the officer having Der in charge
supposed to be marriage contract, aud he dismissed
her home. II was also Ihown tina: Pierre Bourgelat,
the father had settled upon his Barth6emi ao an.
nuify, calling him in the settlement mon fs naturel"
and the latter had accepted the grant styling the donor
" pere naturel," and acknowledging !" une entisfe
"connassance dc ma Nuisance ct de mon etat," per-
feet knowledge of bis birth and status. These writ
f1I the annuity during log series Of yesrs Against