New Orleans Republican. [volume] (New Orleans, La) 1867-1878, 1869-05-23
WHOLE NUMBER $50. 37

| the same court, setting out his claim to the
succession of his natural son as his sole heir,
and prayed to be decreed entitled to the
same; that he be allowed tosaccept it with
beneht of inventory, and that an iAVen-
tory and appraisement be made.
1t was shown satisfactorily to the Court
that the defendant had by notarial act on
the thirteenth of July, 1865, formally ac-
knowledged the decedent as his natural
son; that the son died without descendants,
and that there were no debts against his
estate. Thereupon, on the twelfth of July,
1867 an order was rendered recognizing the
defendant as sole heir Of the estate, and
that he be put in possession as such.
In this suit the plaintiff alleges
as grounds for annulling the order OF the
court that the mother OF the deceased died
in 1861, and that the acknowledgment OF
paternity made by Adam L. Bingaman was
"evidently made in the exclusive interest
of himself, and was therefore inadmissible
without additional proofs legally taken to
prove the Iiliation. That A. Il. Blngaman
was not the natural father Of the decedent,
and that he expects to prove that he re-
peatedly denied being his father. That the
decedent was free man of color, the son of
Mary Ellen Williams, a free woman of color,
and the said A. l.. Blngaman being free
white man, labors under twofold disabili-
ty in the matter of the acknowledgment of
paternity, because the laws Of Louisiana
forbid a white man from legitimating his
colored children, and because A. l.. Blnga-
man was incompetent to marry Mary 4.
Williams, the mother, at the time OF the con-
ception Of the son, and hence could not &C
knowledge him as his natural chlld.' The
defendant excepted on two grounds: first
that the petition sets forth no cause
, of action; secondly, that the petitioner,
: Cassanave is without authority to
| stand in judgment herein as administrator,
, of the succession of j. A. Williams; is identi-
calY the same person as j A. Bingaman,
and that the name of Bingaman was the
patronymic by which that person was gen
7 erally known, and to which he was entitled
2 after the act of recognition in 1865. That
the succession of ]. A. Bingaman was not
opened by the proceedings in virtue of
: which the plaintiff asserts the character OF
administrator OF the estate Of j. A Williams,
and could not be opened, because the same
. had been heretofore regularly opened and
. | finally closed by the judgment of the court,
! | rendered on the application OF the defendant
to be put in possession of said succession in
| the proceedings referred to in the PLAINTIFFS
] ! petition. judgment was rendered in favor
7 Of defendant, sustaining the exceptions and
. dsmlssiHg the plaintiffs action. The judg-
/ | ment further ordered that the under tutor
of the minor Elenora Williams institute
either cOuiOintly with the plaintiff and Wlie,
or in her own behalf, separately in the
: name of said minor, an action testing the
7 validity of the order of the court decreeing
Z a. l. Bingaman to be the sUle heir of j. a.
Bingaman otherwise called J. A. Williams.
d, From this judgment the plaintiff has ap-
g pealed,
= chiefly relies are
n /. That the defendant was not the father
: of J. A. Williams.
u 2. Defendant could not legally acknowl-
,, edge him.
That James Adam williams, as he was
: sometimes called, is the same person that
= was also called James Adam BingamAu
% there can be no doubt Whatever.
The identity is fully shown. The plaint-
i ifs pleadings distinctly admit 1t.
9 We do not see that loose declarations of
= defendant denying himself to be the father
= of the decedent, if such declarations
-e had been proved, could have
Ie weight against his formal acknowledgment
of paternity before Notary Public and
% witnesses in manner required by law and
" :. his sworn averments in judicial proceedings.
Vi That A. L. Bngaman was under any dis
ability to make the acknowledgment of his
q natural child we do not see.
y, The question whether white man can,
rs by the laws Of Louisiana, legally acknOwl'
!, edge his children by a woman of color, un-
u | derWent very fun examination IN the case
lu lu Of Compton and others vs. Prescott and
~ other executors and others, reported in l.
OH Robertson, page 81.
a The court in that case said: 'Our code
after having in article two hundred divldeC
" illegitimate children into two classes, to wit
70 Those IbOrn from two persons who, at tn
" % moment when such children were conceiv
~ ed might have legally contracted marriage
ol with each other; and those who are borl
q, from persons to whose marriage there exist
~ ed some legal impediments, proceeds in tn
"a two subsequent articles to define who ar
- meant by adulterous and lncestuous bas
les tards.n Civil Code, Articles 20l and 202.
- The latter can never be acknowledged
siy Gbidenl, Article 222, } and although there
VI legal impediment to the marriage of whit
az Hu person with free person Of color, (Artlcl
TIi5 95) the exception does not appear
~ their illegitimate or natural children
lce for article 222 says only 'that sue
lu' Acknowledgement shall not be made i
NO. favor of the children produced by an in
,s+ cestuous or adulterous connection"
~ Now, article 22l says in positive tern
lu- that the Acknowledgement of an illegitimat
ol child shall be made by declaration befo1
as a notary public, in presence of two wi
as nessess, and provides that no other dol7loot
ora edgmeit shGR be made IN Ja0or Of chitd'e
%eao % Of color.
re This last proviso contains a negatiJ
vas vas pregnant with an affirmative, and undoub
~ ~ edly means, as we said in the case
io9 Robinette ct ais. vs.. Verdims Vendet
"a a La. 545), that any other proof Of q
~ acknowledgement should be excluded whe
IVY | offered by children of color.
NJ n II It can not mean anything else, for artic
I"ii' 226, by which illegitimate children VIII
'Ni- have not been legally acknowledged al
.or. allowed to prove their paternal descent, pr
~, | VldeQ tley De Tree sand Wnlte, pIoNlueu dls
~ ~ that free illegitimate children of color ma
'no also be allowed to prove their descent fro
-, a fathtr of color only; and it is obvious thu
~ ~ this last restriction was inserted into tt
Va law, because with regard TO his white tatht
IL an illegitimate child of color is not Above
sI5 tLo to prove that he has been acknowledged hl
,eIs ,eIs in the manner pointed ont in article 22l,
'"H wit: by authentic evidence, and that there
.sr fore he can not resort to any other kind
ms proof but when his father is a man of colo
'Sis This is the settled jurisprudence of Il
" He State, and we are OF the opinion that Il
NY defendant was not under any disability
hOO acknowledge in the mode by public act be
O. fore notary and witnesses the decedeI
leA' as his natural son.
We do not find that injustice has bee
done toward the two sisters of the decease
s.ge aeee j. A. Williams or J. A. Bingaman, for Il
judgment expressly reserves their right
elk institute proceedings TO establish and T
ng- cover any share or interest they may by la
riet be entitled 10 in the succession of the
,rro brother
It is therefore ordered. adjudged aud d
nc creed that the judgment of the Distrit
TO Court be affirmed, with costsin both court
,ate Appointments by Governor WarmOth,
6at S Governor Warmoth has made the follow
the ing appointments: John N Howell, Assessed
has and Collector, Caddo parish; Alfred Nj
ion reau, Police Juror First Ward; Urba
am Rrestenback, Second Ward; Nelson Taylo
mes Third Ward; John Houston, Fourth War
lral 4 mn.