The New York herald., 1872-12-21

but In all cases must be given In some way In our
said BY an able writer that i: had GOD for lis guide
human reason a. its interpreter and the preserve
tion OF society for its end 1t the same, thanks
tions, in every State OF this Union. Mr.. O'Conor
referred the Court TO case in Taylor on Evidence,
nont in ieulon, ina page o,S SECTION an or e s,eas
marriage, so that any ol the children could be re-
garded as Observation-Disclosures, In fact, there had
been marriage. Now, the declarant In that case
was the brother OF the party from whom the de-
scent was sought to be traced. He was undoubt-
edy competent, under the general rules Of eyi-
dence, as witness as to who were the legitimate
children-the legitimate relatives-of his brother.
II competent to state who were the
legitimate children OF his brother, he was perfectly
competent, as declarant, to state that b was
not relative or his brother; and that was the
very thing the brother stated-ne said the chill
dren were not legitimate. That was asserting that
person who made q claim 10 be member OF the
family was not member OF it. u was not evi-
dence to introduce an alleged illegltmate into the
family, but 1t was evidence to protect legitimate
members OF family and to establish their right
by asserting that they were the only relatives, and
that B, q and Il Il, who set up to De relatives,
were not relatives AS matter OF course, this law
for the protection OF property and the preservation
OF families from intrusion Of those who were not
heirs, not members OF the family could hardly be
supposed TO be limited In such way as to admit the
declarations OF deceased members OF the family as
to who were relatives, and also to protect the
benignity OF this rule of evidence The law allowed
legitimate declarant to say who were not mem.
bers OF the family, and thus not only admitted, II
he might say so, true and legitimate memper OF
the family, but excluded and repudiated pretend
The learned gentleman then went on to con-
slider the question as TO how far the mat
ter was Influenced by the fact Of party
seeking descent through illegitimacy. Their
proposition was that under the law Of the State OF
New York this rule as to pedigree did not apply 70
the case OF an illegitlmate son seeking to inherit
from his mother, or or mother claiming TO inherit
from her illegitlmate child. He had formed the
opinion that the declarations OF Madame Jumel
were not admissible, but thought thar they should
acquiesce, as a matter OF expediency In the decar
ations OF the witnesses on the other side, because
they firmly believed that any witness who imputed
to Madame Jumel that she had had o child would
be exposed to the most satisfactory evidence that
that statement was not only untrue but was will
fully so. Under the idea OF giving the party at the
other side rope enough he had ad-
vised that tney should acquiesce in the
declarations OF Madame Jnmel, but that was
an entirely different question from whether those
declarations were evidence. They proceeded with
the case until they reached certain point OF time
when Mrs. Vandervo0rt proceeded TO give evidence
OF the declarations OF Lavna Ballou: IL was pro-
posed by these declarations TO give Madame Jumel
newly discovered brothers and sisters. He thought
that was taking too much rope, and he therefore
Judge Shipman said, suppose under the law Of
England question OF this kind arOse--a SON born
in wedlOck, ana for some cause was removed from
the bosom OF the family at a very early date, con-
tinned apart from the family, and being dead, left
lawful issue and the question OF that rightful issue
to the inheritance OF the father came up, would
the declarations or the mother, she being dead,
that she had such child, he received in evi-
dence7v
Mr.. OConor-I do not think, Your Honor, that
there would be any difficulty at all as to the admits
sibillty OF such declaratiOne.
The learned counsel then went on with his argu-
ment on the point at issue, and, having made very
able address, closed his observations at about half
past two O'Clock.
The Court then adjourned until Monday next,
when IL is expected Judge Shipman will render his
decision upon the point III controversy.