The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1879-02-05

L M "a ri md
/ keIievs sacranent ~ tha church. r. can
| elnnost ba assumed thaf some knowi-
| edge Of nrior baptf-m wae Known
| ar so-oa fnoufrv naada At anu rate thase acts
NJ rnafernal eare ware mr. ctfcef and devoted In
the girl without one word or fntimaif0n of the
facts now aIleosd mill the wear 1a7s when
Rudolf became snjtnr for E defendant II mar.
rage: and do nor helleva that in any portion
Of fhis record a mothers solicifnde for fhe in
terests of her child stands forth more freely
nav h bt Itta afren n egi9 ~ th which
speaks of mi treafnenr and abuse TO force a
| marriage with anofher bnt do believe that for
every reason IF prudence and deiicacy plaintiff
was justified in denying the suit OF one who
was an entire stranger, and rather precipitate
/ THIS STATEMENT
If fact hrfroa tba oonrt to The confederation NJ
os Mn - 20 Aoi s0" =" N0
i Mrs. FORESTER. the plaintiff. declares she
& neee5 senea n.KneW notning aopng @ H. T. dnas A.
NJ au 1a ~ ;f h ws h,h4 ~. = az ohttS a
il opder tbaf che noigbP shnw n re- fhe sissera az
~ l9 a. We on s Sne th y eevonan IN "a
uaaJ ~ fba ,bir+,eth "n" '"o hessS was
Eugene Lacosts testified that he was sub
sha4 ,bs arsnos5 ~ me ~ r. t i al
cann @ ae a% ~ Sn' & - a,.s % Is
the re0istrg and 0 wrote the aeclaratinns Of The
olet aelon Or me DAILY who s signed ned ,,4.o,roaa
signed By the plaintiff, one In 1849 and the other
10 1859, both before Theo. Guyol, notary. These
Judge VIM. R. Whitaker was sworn as an ex-
| pert; the signatures com pared and examined oy
him. together with several letters, in INK and
| till. Judge Whitaker declares thar the rerson
who signed the acts of sale and wrote the let.
ters in evidence also signed the registry ~
birth, and his testimony is full and given with
great force and clearness.
The defendant who Is familiar with the
genuine.
It s very true that the test 'mony Of experts
as to HANDWRITING is Of the most unsatistactory
| nature and courts OF Justice will lend but little
favor to their unqualified reception in contra
/ diction to a positive statement; but II Mrs Fo-
who did sign must have had motive
/ In committing the forgery. and must
have known not only, the signature Of plain
seribed with great accuracy It could NOT
have been done by stranger; nor could it
| California Couu eli urges however that Nine
| Lafon was a professional child finder. and no
| thaf s6e nn1st or NAV have done IL Now fhe
pailntifY testlfles She never new Nine. Iaf n be-
| fore this engagemert and never saw her aItrr-
wards. She brought the child: she paid ner
and the matter ended How did Nme Iafon
know that Nine Badon was born lagrange
| VI at she was a rativs OF Lille CNord1, France
| The only onportunity shA had to ses her
writing was
| ON THE ORDER
or receipt she gave for delivery 10 the Sisters.
and that was only a few days before the regis
LFVs Sou SKlElIul IudSSQ must nave Oe6u ibis
| procuress II sne could nave acquired the plain
| tifs signature as to go to public Office In a
day or two after seeing It, and Without copy or
hesitation write it 80 accurately. 40 not know
| that Nine. Lafon could even write. am con
vinced plaintiff does not know, and from her
vocation am not disposed TO believe much In
| her literary requirements.
| i have examined the record in vain TO fad
clue TO motive In a single being appearing
during the Whol1 OF the period embraced In
this affair for the performance Of the act de-
clsred against the plaintiff.
But 90 see a strong motive 10 plaintiff. BE-
| that she should make the entry.
| eourr faka the fastiraonv ~ her ovn vifness
| Nine. Orette- compare It with that of Nine
Joublanc and Elizabeth Landro. and tt will be
| found that throughout was chain OF cifcum-
| stances tnat FORCES conviction as 60 the means
u ed, artihees devised and vanity satisfied.
There is familiarity In handwriting as 10
faces there Is that character i'm pressed by COM
par1son. intercourse and expression that forces
| recognition and defies contradl lctson. / have
examined all these writings time and time
again since nave haa tnls matter under ad-
ylsement, ana nave read tne tesumony slnce
IL nas neen turns ned oy the clerk, and through
wrr ~ e lhs a Wit s c tae same
as snouia recognize DlalntlH II ! snould ever
see ner again, rom having seen her Gay after
conc.noed eaeret2re; ssonn me eysdence before
me, LhaI Nne plalatlH signed tEe registry or
ueges W 5s taaG sue ~ es.oppen from oo0alhihg the
fo 5I lel soIsne " asri rii..s Al, -,
Counsel nave admlt0ed Chat Wltn all tnelr IN
s auseEy, WIN q, u Lne exe5c,se OF az Lneir soiIty
Ln9y LAVE LdIieu ~ unu case sitniar 70 tne one
pr. ns peg =, - ogpel ~siGI. ~ e. y now Urged
NJ - Daas, ns e t ~ .ace 70 more ~, I9rce Pre-
~ aqotT - pi = ~ ~ oi se ~ ADru @ . DSn
rth ~ - ~ fs es1 S1aas h =. au ~ 40 dne
sa5 1e ~ ne tiIit 20 ~ o9 r31 soie
10y has, - ~ e19 t E Ire vi esSoD
essential liz la to the 0ufck and easy transaction
OF business. that one man should be able to put
latin In the conduct and representations OF his
Fellow, tney nave incllned TO nave Such con-
duct and such representations binding In cases
Wnere mlscnlet Or injustice would De caused
py treating tnelr eHect as revocaoie.
vurs pvvrvv
- nm r"
- oas5L 81 on ne ne RUE & ol Law iaio doWn as clear
eIaS wnsae one oy ms }i w9Eus OF c9nuuct Will
Iaily causes anotner 60 believe In the existence
OF cerl4ln sIaCs oI Chlngs. ana Induces MIN to
az On tnas DellrI SO ds 20 aIter BIS own pre-