Year: 1879

END OF THE FAMOUS OBSERVATION-DISCLOSURES


WILL CASE = THE JUDICIAL DECISION.


One of the most interesting ever registered
in the annals Of the forum brought to a close
few days ago at Rome Countess Lambertini, the
self-styled daughter of Cardinal Antonelli.
finally forbidden to parade her immortality before
the world and to abandon her legitimate position for
mercenary purposes. The award of the Supreme
Court of Rome did not astonish any one. After the
excitement that the has caused it will not be
amss glance the legal moral features Of the
suit and its final decision. As will be re-
membered. Cardinal Antonelli left q fortune
amounting to about forty millions of francs
which. according to his WILL was to be distributed
among his brothers and nieces. No mention
whatever was made in that document of the name of
Loretta Marconi. Countess Lambertini. who, rumor
had it. the Cardinals natural daughter. AS the
share of natural child in the absence Of legitimate
descendants. is. according to the Italian code q
fourth of the amount of the inheritance and the
same law forbids father to overlook the rights of
his children Countess Lambertini, who claimed to
be the Cardinals daughter instituted proceedings
have the will asde and her character recognized
The Antonell family stouy denied the story of her
fliation; declined to listen to anything that might
bring dlscredit upon the memory of the deceased
prelate and repeatedly refused to into any
rangement with her. although Plus TX. begged of
them to avoid scandal.


THE SUIT COMMENCED.


On July 8, 1877, she commenced suit, fifty y-three
being the main facts upon which her action
Marconi were not her parents; that she had been
intrusted to them by the Cardinal; that she was
born Of an intrigue OF the latter with foreign lady
rank; that the Cardinal always loved and treated
her as q daughter, and that she publicly known
such. we'll contrived story. in which
man-Mme. Gervas-played prominent part sup.
ported her assertion. The Countess was permitted
to prove everything she desired. though the law
hardly permitted such latitude as she was granted
by the courts. One of the best lawyers
of Italy, Signor Taani, undertook her defence.
and she gained her suit before the lower court
it is called i'll Italy the Civil Tribunal. From this
sentence, which astonished Europe, although the
circumstantial evidence in favor Of the Countess
naturally appealed, and the judgment was reversed.
The finally taken before the Supreme Court,
but the contest came falling account, it is
said. Of the poverty OF the plaintiff Professor Man
cini the eloquent of the Italian lawyers and
man Of wonderful learning VINO has been several
times a member Of the Italian Cabinet generously
offered his services to the Countess gratutously,
and the case was carried through the last stage OF
jurisdiction. though unhappily tor the plaintiff.


THE LAW AND THE FACTS


The matters relating to her BIRTH claimed the
ilustrious counsel Of the Countess must be- settled
This was the old Roman and Canon law incorpo-
rated IN the "Regolaments, published by Gregory
XVI. This law, although forbdding in principle
any inquiry as to the paternity OF child born in
wedlock, admitted the testimony of witnesses in
doubtful important cases. Moreover, here is not
question Mancin said, of adultery when the maxim
"Pater est quem nuptiae demonstrant," may be ap-
piled. This is of simulated adoption. Countess
Limbertini is no more the daughter of Maria Mar
conf than of Augelo her husband, and undoubtedly
the argument was a weighty one, and such
mislead the most experienced judges The Supreme
Court. however. was not caught in the trap. They
resolved the question in a side way. Countess
Lambertini they say, is recorded in the baptismal
register Of Santa Maria della Via, at Rome as the
legitimate daughter OF Angelo and Maria Marconi.
whenever the lady mas signed her name In
official document. both under the Papal and the
Italian governments she has always recognized her
legitimate hliaton. The proof this
is full to admit of no contradiction.
Written proof be destroyed only by
having been furnished. 1--WE cannot go beyond the
Returning Board" and all the circumstantial evil
dence afforded is inadmissable. This argument,
which at first appears rather too strictly legal is,
however. sound In equity, as well as in law. The
value Of written documents would be frustrated ii
verbal evidence were sufficient to paraiyze their
effect. No written proof contradicting the docu-
ments mentioned had been furnished by plaintiff.
She had not attached them being forgcries. How
could the Court render judgment in opposition to
them?


THE METHOD OF THE DEFENCE


The counsel Tor the Countess, on question init
mately connected with the foregoing now demanded
the application Of the Italian code. as it suited best
as ''sacrilegious children those born priests
aud. naturally enough. for sacerdotal government
forbade any inquiry tending to establish their
paternity. The italian code going so tar as to i'm
plicitly admit even the marriage of priests. the
plaintiff would have gained an important point had
he same to the the sk
was displayed by the defeLce in this
connection. aud regret to. have room for the
shrewd argument of Professor Mancini in behalf of
the adoption of his theory. But the Court decided
that the Italian code could not be invoked IN the
of Cardinal Antonelli she would be sacii ilegious
child. and. consequently, she would not even have
the right to claim parentage. The beneht of the
most lenient between the two conflicting laws.
invoked by the plaintiff. could not be granted.
utterly inappiicable and the other remained
stern and clear admitting of two interpretations


THE MORALITY OF THE CASE.


The third point upon which the decision Of the
Supreme Court is founded contains lesson Of high
morals which cannot fail to meet the approval of
any well thinking man, whatever the impression
that the other two may have produced upon him.
counsel for the defendants. Signor Adriano Mari,
formerly Secretary of Justice in the Ricasol Cabi
of the Italian Parliament, has established the
principle that no man has right to
pass from a Legitimate to an illegitimate con-
dtion. Both the Papa and the Italian laws as we'll
the natural one. against the plaintiff; for
neither admitted the evidence OF witnesses to estab
lish the illegitmacy of legitimate child. The only
conclusive proof which might have perplexed the
Court the subject would have been the production
of the mother. for mater semper est but this mother
has never been produced. and 1t Is possible she Is
naught but myth. This lady did not volunteer
her statement to support the rights Of her
daughter. She did not sacrifice her pride for
her daughters interest aud honor. The plain
tilt did not prove that she could not be
the daughter or Angelo Marconi by establish
ing the impotence of the latter the law required
She did not prove the maternity of the foreign lady,
nor the substitution OF the lady's child that of
Maria Marconi. She proved nothing in short OF all
that she was desirous of proving, and punish
ment was condemned to pay costs about one hun
dred thousand francs The general opinion in Rome
is that had the Cardinal been her father she
should have excused his forgetting her in his will,
remembering that he had done much for her IN
his life time; she should have proudly borne her
poverty rather than expose his memory to become .
subject of scandal. Only in that would she have
won sympathy.


AFRICAN EXPLORATION.