The daily exchange. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1858-1861, 1861-03-09
THE BONAPARTE-PATTER CAsE.

they TcaiLy dOn know Wnat judgment would beS
please the Emperor. Many people think he woul
not be sorry to make cousin Plon-Plon eat littl
humble pie. Although decision in favor of tn
plaintiff would not prejudice the succession to tn
| crown as at present settled, yet it would place Mr.
BOnaparte and his son, the gallant Young Frencl
officer, who may possibly have opportunities o
adding lustre to the name which he bears in such
position that the Emperor light play them off verl
ettectualy against PlOn-PlOn if ever he should rur
rusty.
ii. Merveileux threw over Prince Napoleon
advocate upon almost every point. He conceded
to Berryer that the two DEGREES and the .Senatus
Cohs"tunt OF the first Napoleon did not have the
effect of annulling Miss Patterson's marriage. Ht
also admitted, contrary to the volunteered evidence
OF certain Mr.. Robert Howe Gould, who has
stood forward in a very discreditable attitude
against Mrs. Patterson, thai the marriage was per
tectly regular and valid in America. lie very
lightly limited an opinion that the marriage might
be held void by French law being "clandcstine' u
but he laid no stress upon the want of the publica
ton OF Danns IN France or OF the consent of Jerome
B0naparte's mother. He believed in the "pood
faith" with which Miss Patterson contracted the
marriage, but this argument only relates to the
question Of the ''civil effects" of the marriage,
supposing 1t to be annulled. If | understand his
argument Alright he submits to the Court that this
question has been irrevocaby decided (that there
is chose jWgce) against Mrs. Patterson and her son
by the family council of Napoleon III. in 1859. But
| If the Court should hold that the marriage was
never annulled the judgmen: goes for nothing
On the whole, speaking with some legal knowledge
and experience Of French Courts, | describe the
speech of the Public Minister as one which betrays
an evident expectation that Mrs. Patterson and her
son will win. Judgment stands postponed till this
day week.
From the London Standard, FEB. 1871
| JUDGMENT.
AT the sitting OF the Tribunal of the First In.
stance on Friday, the President, NJ. Benoit Cham
py, delivered the following iudg
The tribunal Judging in the first resort
| Considering the demand against H. |. II. Prince
| Napoleon by Madame L. Patterson and j. Bona.
parte, her son, has for object the liquidation and
distribution of the succession of II. |. Ii. Prince
Jerome, deceased, June "a, 1860:
That this demand is founded upon the quality
which the plaintiffs claim of legitimate wife and
son of Prince jerome, with whom Madame f. Pat
tersnn is alleged to have contracted marriage at
Baltimore on December a, 1903
Considering that among the grounds put forward
4 defence to this action, is one founded upon the
authority of Ia chose jugee "a previous final deci
sion) that according to the defence this authority
results from two decisions of the family counsel
pronounced on July A. 1856, and July s. 1860,
which decisions admitted and proclaimed the null
ty Of the marriage of Dec "a, and its non efiica-
city even with regard to civil effects.
That 1t is proper, in the first place, to consider
the merits of this ground Cf defence because ifit
be well founded it establishes peremptory excep-
| tion to the present demand, and relieves the tri-
| bunal from the necessity of examining the other
! questions raised in the course of the argument
whether the marriage was void as tainted with
clandestinity, whether Madame Patterson can
claim the benefit of "gOod faith" in the legal ac
ceptation of the term, and what authority is due
| to the DEGREES of the llth and 30th Yentose:
And finally, whether the possession etat (stotWs)
| claimed by Mr. Berryer's clients does not meet
| with manifest, energetic, and continuous contra
dicticn in the single fact of the second marriage
contracted in 1907 by his Imperial Hghuess Prince
Jerome and the Princess Catherine of Wurtem-
berg, on the faith of the legal nonexisence of the
first union, and whether therefore the expressions
| importing relationship used towards Jerome Pat
tersOn in the correspondence do not find their ma
| tural explanation in the undoubtcd ties of blood
which existed, and more especially so seeing that
the recognition Of this possession detat would have
been, on the part of the children of the second mar
riage, the negation of their own legitimacy;
Considering that by the terms of article $50 of
the Code Napoleon legal presumption is especially
connected with the authority which the law at
| tributes to the chose jHgee;
That by the terms of article ,35l of the same
code, the authority of the chose gee prevails with
regard to that which has been the subject of
| Judgment; that the thing demanded must be the
| same, and the demand must be founded upon the
same cause, and contested between the same par
! ties appearing in the same character.
! Considering that in order to determine whether
tho rarinna nnnditinns of idantitv EXISTS in the
present cause, it is necessary to examine minutey
the circumstances which gave rise to the discussion
/ in the family council, as well as the conclusions
! taken before it. and upon which the judgments of
|
| dered
Considering that the marriage Of December a.
| 1903, contracted at Baltimore between j. Bona
parte, brother of the First Consul ana L. Patter-
son, was, 1T is true, celebrated according to the
forms and with the publicity required by the local
statutes; but that it is proved that jerome Bona.
parte was then only nineteen, and that the ella
! OF the Code Napoleon relative to marriage had
been promulgated in the month of March preceding
That according to article of the code the laws
| concerning the state and capacity of Freedmen
| govern Frenchmen abroad; and that according to
| article 40, two conditions were imposed to 7ali-
! date a marriage contracted by Frenchman in a
| foreign country-the publications prescribed by
article G3, and the consent of the parent III con
| formity with article 14S-nether of which c0udi-
| tons were complied with in the present case; and
so early as October, 1903, the French Minister in
the United States notified these legal disposition to
jerome Bonaparte, and also to Mr.. Patterson, the
| father, and General Smith, a near relation of Z.
Patterson, and that these notifications did have the
| effect Ofbreaking off the marriage in 1908.
That nevertheless the project of marriage was
suddenly revived and realized on December 24th of
| the same year.
| That it is even to be remarked that in the con-
tract stipulation was inserted by which jerome
BOnaparte under took, in any doubt should ever
be raised to the validity of the marriage either
| in the State Of Maryland in France, to do and
complete all acts necessary to difficulties,
and to make the union valid and perfect marriage
according to the forms and laws both of Maryland
and France.
| Considering that an authentic protest of Madame
| Mere against the aforesaid marriage, dated VEN
tose, year Kill, was followed bv two DEGREES of
| the Emperor Napoleon l., dated II and 80 Ventose
| of the same year;
The first prohibiting all officers of the etat civiI
from receiving on their registers the Transcription
of the act of celebration of the pretended marriage
contracted by Prince jerome BOnaparte in a for
| eign country.
| The second, declaring that the said marriage was
null and void, that it could never produce any civil
| pt hn bppn IN ha horn of
| the said marriage could never claim any right of
relationship founded upon that union.
| Considering that two years later, the marriage
of his Imperial Highness, Prince Jerome Bonaparte
| with the Princess Catherine of Wurtemburg was
celebrated in France with all the formaites pre-.
scribed by law, and that on January 2, 1918, Mad
anne +. Patterson claimed and obtained from the
General Assembly of Maryland an act annullng the
marriage which she had contracted in 1903 with
Jerome BOnaparte;
That in this state of things their Imperial High
nesses Prince Napoleon and Princess Mathilde, his
sister, children of the marriage of jerome and the
| Princess Catherine of Wurtemburg having learned
that j. Patttrson not only assumed the name of
! BOnaparte, but claimed to be legitimate son, by
virtue of the marriage of December "a, 1903,
| brought action for the purpose of establishing
that j. Patterson not entitled to exercise any
of the rights appertainng to the legitimate issue
of Prince Jerome and that he and his descendants
might be prohibited from using the name of Bo-
naparte, the decree of II Ventose remaining in full
| force.
That the family council instituted by article IS
of the statute of June q, 1853, by virtue of the
Senatus Consultum of November 7, 1852, the
only tribunal competent to take cognizance of this
action and that it had sovereign jurisdiction on the
question.
! That Jerome Patterson, as we'll in his name
as in that of his son, recognizing the competence
of the family council maintained that the marriage
! of December q vaid that the certificate of
! the marriage and the possession detdt following it
established his Legitimacy in the most peremptOry
manner; that subsidiary he demanded that in case
| the marriage should be declared void, it might
produce its civil effects in virtue of articles 20l and
202 of the Code Nap oleon, a consequence of the
"good faith''-at least the presumptiye good faith
of the lady.
! That upon these conclusions thus taken and de-
veloped by NM. Allou and Berryer, in the name
of the respective parties, the family council de-
cided on July 4, 1885, that although the defendant
must be held entitled to bear the name of Bona
parte, by which he had always been known, he
had no right to the benefit of articles 20l and 2O2
| of the cOde;
And this because it did not appear from the facts
and circumstances of the cause that the defendant
had right to avail himself of the aforesaid arti
cles, and because the marriage of 1903 had been
made null and void by the DEGREES of IL and so
Yentose, year KILL, even with regard to children
born and to be born.
Considering that it is ma nifest that in refusing
to give to the marriage of Dec. a. 1903, the value
and effects of putatve marriage, the family coun-
| Gil necessarily and fOrtiori recognized and pro-
claimed the nullity of that marriage;
Considering it is true that this Judgment is not
binding upon Mrs. Patterson, who was no party to
it, but that second Judgment against both her and
her son Jerome Patterson, now authorized to bear
the name of Bonaparte, was pronounced on July
5, 1860; that an opposition to the removal OF the
seals alter the death of Prince Jerome having been
| formed by them claiming right in the success
sion, the family council was invested with cogni-
zance of this new difficulty; that the conclusions