New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1868-08-02

was technical, but favorable. Again i
1914, with similar result. In 1847 she frs
gained decided success. Justice Wayne
her steady friend, almost her advocate, de
clared for the Court that her claim to prom
erty in New Orleans, now occupied by par
tles whose title came from Relf and Chew
executors OF the will of 1911, was valid
de decided that she was the Legitimate
daughter OF Daniel Clark, and consequent
", under the laws of Louisiana, could no
De dlspossessed entirely, as the will of 1911
assumed to do. She must be "foreed heir
to portion. In this case Chief Justice
Ianey did not sit, near family relative
being interested Justice Mclean did not
and Justice Catron, being indisposed, die
not. 1t was the first decided success.
In 1851 came adversely. Judge Catror
pronounced the opinion Of the Court IN.
favorable to every claim which Mrs. Gaines
set up. bill in equity. claiming the
share to which her mother (Zuiime) would
as the legal wife OF Daniel Clark, be emit
tied by the Louisiana law, in spite of the
will of 1911, was summary dismissed on
the ground that she was not the Legitimate
child of Daniel Clark.
10 this, of course, Judge Wayne, Joined
by Judge Daniel, dissented.
But again, in 1860, there was new de-
cision. Ia the interim the destroyed will
OF 1873 had been admitted to probate, and
TINS probate, upon appeal, sustained in the
Louisiana courts, its contents being estab.
lished by the recOllections of those who
heard it read by Clark.
| more 9.-The will of 1873 was proven
in the Probate Courts in 1884 by persons
who had not only heard it read by Clark
but had also read it themselves.1
This important point, gained in 1856, had
claimed victory from the jaws of defeat
The whole case--law, fact, technicalities
slde-lssues, everything-was reviewed and
upon every point decided in faver of Mss.
Gaines, Justice Wayne once more speaking
for the Court. Justice Catren again differ
ed, and the Chief Justice (whose interest
through his relatives seems to have ceased),
and Judge Grier joined him. Catron's
opinion is most unfriendly, and reviews
with caustic severity the apparently weak
points in the claimants case. In summing
up he said:
eff the decision in Twelfth Howard (his
own opinion of 1851 be overthrow ruin
must be the consequence to very many
who have had confidence in its souadness.' p
Relying upon it as conclusive an immense
amount of the disputed property had
changed hands, and become vastly i'm
| proved in the intervening nine years. He
added (this is directly denied by Judge
Davis in the decision of 1859 that Clark
was a ruined man at his decease. "His
failure was very large; his estate was Who'll
ly insolvent. The purchasers have in fact
paid his debts to large amount. Many of
them are yet unpaid The property
claimed, he said, "has probably increased
in value five hundred fold since l920,r the
date of Relf and Chews sales whence the
| defendants derived their title.
Judge Grier was scarcely less pronouuc-
ed in his views. He closed his dissent
with these vigorous words:
81 wholly dissent from the opinion of the
majority Of the court in this case, both as
to the law and the facts. But
do not think it necessary to vindicate
my opinion by again presenting to the pub
| lie view history of the scandalous gossip
which has been buried under the dust Of
half a century, and which proper feeling
of delicacy should have suffered to remain
so; | therefore dismiss the case, as l hope.
for the last time, with the single remark that
| if it be the law of Louisiana that will can
be established by the dim recollections,
| imaginations, or inventions of anile Cos
sips, after forty-fve years TO disturb the
titles and possessions of bona fide purchas-
ers, without notice of an apparently indie.
feasible legal title, Haud eqttidsm iRvideo,
mirror nldgis." Il do not indeed envy your
position, but rather wonder at it,
more 1O.-It is presumable that the
witnesses to the will of 1918 were old
enough to know the obligations of an oath,
and that if they were camille gossips' testi-
flying to "dim recollections imaginations,
or inventions" the astute and talented
counsel employed against Mrs. Gaines
would certainly have impeached their tes-
timonyi but fortunately for Mrs. Gaines
they were unimpeachable, and gave their
testimony only twenty-one years instead
of forty five years after the death of the
testator, as stated by Judge Grier. 1t is a
matter ofregret, however, that Judge Grier
should have so overlooked the facts; and
ii was fortunate for Mrs. Gaines
and the cause of justice that she
had such pure and noble men to adjudieate
her rights as Wayne, Chase, Nelson, Cliff
ford, Davis, Field, Mclean, Mckinley, aud
Daniel, who, unlike Judge Griers, in pro-
portion to the length of time she had been
wronged, had the moral courage to decide
that that wrong should be redressed finally
and forever, presenting moral to the
world that crime, however long concealed
in Darkness will finally be brought to
| light
The particular case decided was against
Duncan N. Hennen, of New Orleans, who
held title for square of ground bounded
By Phillippi, Circus, and Poydras streets.
This had come into his hands through the
following transfers:
1920. Sold by Relf and Chew, executors
of Daniel Clark, and attorneys in fact for
Mary Clark to Azelic Lavigne.
1886. Azelic Lavigne to J. Hiddleston.
1886. J. Hiddleston to New Orleans and
Carrollton Railroad Company.
1874. N. o. & @. r. R. Co. to D. N. Hen
men.
After twenty-six years possession, nine
Of which had been in confirmation of a de-
cision of this court, Hennen was dispos-
sessed by this decree.
The decision Of 1860 would seem to be
conclusive and final. II was so intended 10
be. But Mrs. Gaines was still resisted
Once more, in 1868. her claims have been
confirmed. Her old friend, Judge Wayne,
4