Newspaper Page Text
TJClMH OP THE PAPER: U VMcVRIPTION IIATMI. DAILY per annum $1o; and at same rate half 1ºF'Zi LY( lvlubllm ( eavery Batnrday morn ga) per annum oa; and at same rate half pearly and quarterly. ADVW.HRTINING RAT -IA DAILY. Transient advertisements $1 per square (ten lines of s0old agate) first Instrtion' 0 oente wch subseqvunt oonseo94(tthi inserion-. Want, oToe nt Foro B l .e.d .1ding ad *stei.lmen~s, 1 eents a line, net cas, solid me rte None .ken at les than 0 oe ld nts. Advertisement4 for the period of one month d1 longer, 40 fnilowK: lrai r 1frin s Notices 20 oents a line, net. tloitorlai Notices. in Editorial type, so cents a oe. net. i.tearos. I mo, 2 mo. .s mo. 6 mmo. j 12 n6 22 30 (0 5e 128 pree ~ 13) 63 70 110 176 r ... . . 67 99 140 226 S . 4 80 140 170 275 . 54 9 120 2110 826 en, ... 641 10 14. 8X14 . 6 115 140 28 41 751 10 24 4 90 460 g ) . 4 146 19 326 6414 ..... 444 3146 210, 414416)40 Monthly a'lvlrtisemenlts, haying the run of the gUpsr, in1rtnd every other day, to be ara.d.two.thi rls the above ratew. - torirl vpe monthly advortsements, each. aquare, $20 per month. IRtes for Advertling Il the Weekly New4 Orleans Demoarat. _Trnslent and general rates the same as for Ivrtlsnments for the period of one month' tMd longer, as follows: I mo. I 2 mo. I mo. I S mo. I l mo. 6 1.. R 12 9 2 *20 S 1 1 2 go 83 70 S14 os 447 90 ..... 2 44041 9P88 12206 22 146 64 $6 1$20 o5n AR 8 60 106 120 2hi 7 41 f14 115 1l . 9 44 70 1215 104 81 47 74 18e m10h 83 ir K 0 14) 193 .v 4 . 65 0 186 10 $*W. r (1 16 1 9126 I0 60 100 1K I 260 850 IMtPORTANT DEISION. Mrs., 1jialnes in Victorious All Alor .Ilr Inrla-Mny Bona Fide Property Holders Thereby Broristi To (rlef. o. 8088-Joseph Fuentes et als. vy. Mrs. Myra Clark Gaines. No. 2783--Myra Clark Gaines vs M. J. iAzardi et asl. No. 8063-Myra Clark Gaines vs P. II. Mousseaux et ale. No. 400t-Myra Clark Gaines vs. D. Cronan et als. No. 4081--Myra Clark Gaines vs. N. Lonque eo ali. No. 6085-Myra Clark Gaines vs. P. F. Agnilly et ahl. No. 5048-Myra Clark G.ine vs. L. F. Compton et asl. No. 4010-Myra Clark Gaines vs. F. A. Brown et ale. No 5099-Myra Clark Gaines vs. A. Berman st ala. These oames were all before me, the numerous stlta for the recovery of real estate in which Mrs. *n seemks to charge the respective defendants na trustees, and for a discovery, and the case In which Fuentes et al. ask for the revocation of the probate of the alleged will of Daniel Olark, known am the will of 1818. The. e cases have been heard, are submitted, and are to be decided together by agreement of the parties. The full argument of counsel occu glegd seventeen entire days and an examination ofrthe records have satisfied me that the various dcolsions rendered by the Suapreme Court of the Ut..atd States have concluded me upon very many of the questions of law which have been presented. I shall Arst consider the suit for the revocation of the probate of the will. The Supreme Court of the United states in their opinion pronounced in this case, 2d of Otto, p, 17, in order to determine whether it wa, re movable from the State to the United States Courtt ha defined its naturoe and has character. it as follows: "The action cannot be as properly instituted for the revoca Uon of the probate, but must be treated as brought against the devisee by strangers to the estate to annul the will as a muni meat of title and to restrain the enforce ment of the decree by which its validity was ee tablished, so far as it affesot their property." It il a snit which was instituted as an adjunct and mans of defense to the numerous other malts for the recover of real estate in which the eomplainant rested her title upon a will, the sub tanltial allegation being that the will was admit ted to probate upon Islse and nsufficient testi maony. It has now been cumulated with these other actions. It is, therefore, to be viewed and tried as if it were a pleading in these other sc tions, presenting the issue derlsalit vlt non.. It presents the broad question, was there a will on isttered by the restrictions of the Code relating to actions to annul the probate of wills? Before eonadering the cause upon the merits, I will dis ose of the plea of proscription of five years. The(Oivil Oode, art. 8510 (3505). provides as fol lows: "That actions for the nulliy, or rescission of contracte, testaments or other acts are pre slribed by five years." I think this article refers to actions brought against parties who are in possession under a will and that it has no application to a will invoked, as here by a party out of possession as a muolment of ttle against those in possession not claiming mader the same will, and that whenever by and against such parties a will is relied upo, to establish a link in the chain of title it may be attacked. I think, therefore, the plea should be ovearuled. The other exception, vii: that the plaintiffs (omplainants) Fuentes, et al., could not main. tain their actions, as strangers to the estate of Ianiel Olark, is disposed of by the fact that in the supplemental petition they claimed to have de rsivd title from Relf and Chew, executors, or as attorneys in fact of Mary COmrk, universal lera u noder the will of Daniel Clark, known as the ill of 1811; and by the further fact that the con sideration of this case with the others renders the petition or bill of complaint in this action in loet a plea interposed in the others, which m be termed direct actions. brings me to the question, was there, so ialng to the evidence presented before me, a will? Has the will of 1813 been established be *re me as an instrument executed by Daniel aLrk. and clothed with the requisite formalities of a last will and testament according to the laws of Louisiana ? It is urged by the complain alte. luetest al.: 1. That the prooes verbal which entitles this will to be received as a pro bated will, is wanting. 2. That the will as pro bated is not shown to have been dated, and thus, does not, in that respect, com ply with the requirements of the law in respect to olographio wills. 3. That the evidence disproves, or fails to prove, that such a will ever existed; and fourth, that if such a will was ever executed, since it was not found ater the death of the testator, the presumption of law is, that it was destroyed by the testator aniTmo cancellani, and that this presumption has not been rebutted by the proofs. First, as to the absepoe of the proces verbal. tileles 912 and 943, C. P. give the teotual pro risions of the law as to what the proces verbal shall contatu ; but it is clear they cannot, with the exception "f that provision which relates to the order for executing and recording the will, apply to wills, which, as in this case, are lost. The reasoning of the Supreme Court of Louis iana an I their decree in which they order the re cordiug and t xi cution of this identical will with out any such process verbal, and when in the nature of things no such recital as is pointed out Ii the r. quiremeuts of the Code of t ractice be lre referred to could exist, is an athoritative de .iato n ,~ the law of Louisiana on his point. cemgaton of Clark, 11 Annual, pages 124, 131.) Judg, .. a, sitting as a Probate Judge, while flnding the pruote qu.fieient to establish the will, decreed against its being admitted to probate on the ground that the proof was not, inmanner and form, such as the statute required. There was, therefore no probate of the will in the lower .art, bat ioappeal the Bapreme Court reversed be reer and ordered t i executed. What the did in that ease is a paot oonatrvoetton o, the law upon the point al to how a on t will may be probated, and of its admlseIblity when so TL. eees d obrojeOat "31a the will is not ire bgtybq *t ed drMie U" trely written, dated and signed by the hand of the testator." on this point of date the testi mony adduced before me is precisely the same as that brLfore the Supreme Uort of Lionisman at the time tie will was probated. They found it sufficient, that is. they must have found that the will was dated; that the year, month and day were written by the testator. Again, the two witnesses who read the will were Mrs. Bmythe and Mr. Belleo asee. Mrs. ISmythe, at page 141, Probate Record, in answer to the 26,h interrogatorY, says: "'he whole of bhis will was in Mr. Clarke's handwriting; it was dated and signed by Mr. Clarke at the time I read it." At page 143, in answer to the 32d inter rogatory, she sae: "It was dated in July. 1813." rlellechasse, at page 162, Probate Record, says In answer to interrogatory 13: 'The last will of Clark, tb wit, the will of 1813, was legal in form because it was written wholly in his (Clark's) handwriting, and was dated and signed biy htn." These witnesses both testify that the will was dated. and one of them adds, "it was dated in July, 1813." The fair meaning of their language is that it bore the year, month and day: and the meaning of the lan. gusge of Mrs. Hmvthe is that it bore date on a particular day of July, Anno Dimini 1813. If a jury had founl as aspecial verdict that the will Ib ire date on same day in July, 1813, though they did not specify what day, so long as being in July left it the last will of Clark, would not a court be bound to give judgment that the will wns dated ? And the testimony of these two wit nesses, uncontraditoed, is on this point equiva lent to a special verdict. It is proven that the will bore date on some one of the lays in July, 1813, and this is sufficient. The third objecti n, that the evilence dis proves, or falls to prove that this will ever or inted; ail fourth, that if it was ever executed, since it was not found after the death oif the testator, the presumption of law is that it was destroyed by him for the purpose of cancelling, aind thet this presumption has not been rebutted. The testimony which has been read before tue is in 4lmost all respects identical with that ad duced baeore the Supreme Court of Louisiana (11 An. 125, 126, 127), and is there stated with clearness and fairness by Judge Lea and by the Supreme Court, as follows: "In looking for the testimony which might. solve the question whether such a will had ever been executed or not, a roesonable inquirer would naturally turn for information to those who were most with the deceased in the latter part of his life, and especially (if they could be found) to those who were with him in the last moments of his existeonce, when the hand of death was on him. buich witnesses, if they had no interest in d verting his property into any particular chan nels, might be considered as the best and most reliable that could be produced, and it appears to be precisely testimony of this character that the peiitioner presents in support of her application. It appears that Bolsfonuaine had business rela lions with the deceased, which brought him into frequent intercourse with him, and that for the last two days of his life and up to the moment of his dleath, he was with him; that De Ia Croix and Belleihaese were intimate personal friends and that they were with him shortly before his death. Now these witnesses all concur in stating that Clark said he had executed a will posterior to that of 1811. They also testify that within a few months prior to his death he was making arrange mnents for the disposal of his property by a last will. He called on De Ia Croix to get his consent to act as executor and also as tutor to his daugh ier Myra, expressing his intention of making a generous provision for her in his will. De Ia Croix further states that Clark afterwards pro sented to him in his (Clark's) cabinet a sealed packet which he declared to be his last will, in forming him at the same time that in case of his (eath it would be found in a small black trunk which he had there. Dolsfoutaine, who was with Clark when he died, says that Clark, in his last illness, spoke of executing his last will ; said it was to be found in a room down stairs, in a small black trunk; that he had left the greater portion of his prop. erty Slshis child, Myra; that Bellechasse, De isa Crolx and Pitot were to be his executors; and that about two hours before be died he instructed his confidential servant, Lubin, that in case of his death the small black trunk above referred to was to be delivered to De Ia Croix, and en joined on him as soon as he (Clark) was dead, to be sure and take it to him. lie states that Clark expressed his satisfaction that he had pro vided for his daughter Ilyrs, leaving her all his estate, and that De Ia Croix bad consented to act as her tutor. He also states that he was present about fifteen days before Clark's death, when Clark took from the small black case a sealed p.ckage and presented it to De la Croix, stating that it was his last will, recapitulating some of its provisions, and reminding him of his promise to act as tutor to his daughter. He further states that several persons, shortly before Clark's death, had seen the will, and corroborated Clark's statement as to its contents, and that Judge Pltot, Lynd, the notary, the wife of William Har per and Belleohasse were among the persons refirred to. "Now" the Judge -i quo proceeds, " I think there can be no doubt, setting aside the testimony of Bellechasse and Mrs. Wm. Harper, that Clark did execute a will shortly before his death; that the principal object of making this will was to recognize as his daughter the present applicant and to make suitable provision for her; that the executors of this will were Pitot, elleobhase and De Ia Croix, and that Do la Croix was apoointed tutor of his daughter Myra ; that this will must have been in existence until within a very short time previous to Clark's death, if not after that event, and that Clark himself died believing it was in existence. " That such was the opinion of De Ia Croix him self at the time, is evident from the fact that twenty-four hours had scarcely elapsed after the probate of the will of 1811, before he made oath that he verily believed that Ilaniel Clark hail made a testament posterior to that of 1811, that Its existence was known to several persons, and he accordingly applied for and obtained an order of the court commanding every notary in the city to declare whether such document had been de posited with him. it the rorTgoUig Iraci y is ounruwesu MS proved, independent of the testimony of Belle chasse and Mrs. Wmn. Harper, the additional testimony of these last named witnesses with reference to the form of the execution of the will and its contents will rest upon a basis of proba blilty, which must strengthen if it does not anticipate the conviction of its truth, for it is to be remembered that Clark knew how to draw an olographic will in due form, having already done so in the execution of a previous will, and know in what was necessary to its validity It would be improbable in the extreme that he would omit any of the few necessary formalities. When Belleohasse and Mrs. Harper, there fare, testify directly to the execution of the will as having been written, dated and signed in the proper handwriting of the testator, they testify to the existence of facts which are, at least, probable, and, upon the assumption that the will was executed, are matters approaching to certainty independent of their testimony; so with regard to the appointment of executors, of the titor, and of the general dispositions of the will as described in the petition. They state Clark did what he told others he intended to do, and what, from the whole tenor of his conduct, it was very probable he would do. It does not appear,however,that all the contents of the will as sworn to by Mrs. William Harper are;slso sworn to by Bellechassee, and though the testimony of the latter does not contradict that of the former, but confirms it, yet his testimony does not relate to any portions of the will, except such as relate to its form, the institution of his daughter as universal legatee, and the appoint ment of De Is Croix, Pitot and Bellechaebse as exe cutors. Indeed, the examination of witnesses does not appear to have been conducted with any reference to a detailed description of the will. They, however, both state distinctlythat they read the will; that it was wholly written, dated and signed by Clark; that he thereby instituted Myra Clark, his daughter, his universal legatee, and appointed De Ia Croix, Pilot and Bellechasse his executors. From an examination of the whole testimony, and considering the conduct of the deceased, his repeated deolarations up to the very day of his death, together with Lie anxiety po make ample provision for his daaghter, the Judte of the lower court adds: "I feel satisfied bhatthe legal presumption (which in the case of a lost will would necessarily exist) that it was destroyed or revoked by the teatater, must be considered as satisfactorily rebutted." In addition to the statement of facts and con clusions in regard to them of the judre of the lower court, it may be remarked that De 1º Croix states that the endorsement upon the will which h( saw sealed no were in these words : "Pour etre ouvert en cas de mort." This endorsement does not appear upon the till of 1811, and the will which he saw was doubtless the will of 1813. The chief testimony offered by the complain ant in addition to that which is there cifered, is the testimony of Masurean's probate record. page 43J, and the answers of Belf and Chew. Mamureau's letter cannot, in my opinion, be re ceived as evidence. It is simply a statement in writing of a person not a pary to, or a witness in these eauses or in any sad not under caib. saxd knowa asa_ E Chew are an emphalo denial, but they do no1 outweogh the force of the direct and ciroumatano tial evidence in favor of the execution of this will. In this connection I will consider the tee timony of Mr. Brown, which is urged to invali date that of Mrs. Smythe, and the let'er of Bellechassee to Mr. Cox, as tending tk show uncertainty In his recollectiot of the terms of the will. Mr. Browr testifies that Mrs. Lmythe visited in hit family the summer after Mr. Clark's death; thai she spoke often and mist particularly about his death and estate, and never referred to the will of 1818. If these statements are to considered as properly in evidence they are to be consid ered as urged against the witness, to whose atten tion they were never called, and who, therefore, never had an opportunity to explain, or by other testimony rebut them. Mrs. Smythe was tvi dently attached to Myra, now Mrs. Gaines, whom she had suck!ed, and may have considered that there was no good then to be derived by her in speaking of the will; or, what is equally possible, she may have made reference to it which was not understood or was forgotten by Mr. Brown. A number of witnesses attest her entire respecta bility and credibility, and taking Brown's testi inony in the most favorable light, it does not ne cessarily oontra-iot and cannot avail to materially weaken the teetieony of a disinterested witness, clearly intelligent, and proved by numerous wit nesses to be trustworthy. As to the letter of Bellechasse to Mr. Cox, Pro bate Record, page 855, Vol. 1, he is recorded as saying: "I was one of his i xecutors, as well as Messrs. Relf, De Ia Cro(ix and Pitot." Thus ad ding Relf in addition to the executors who hie andl Mrs. Smythe say were named in the last will. But in the next sentence, with reference to his avowal of having received a conveyance of fifty one lots in secret trust fhr Myra. now Mrs. Gaines, he uses the same names and in the same order. This all appears as a trans ation, the French original having mysteriously disappeared. Now it is quite possible that either in writing out the translation of the letter the copyist may have fallen into the error of using all the three names in b ith collocations, though in the first, that of lteif might not have stood in the original, or in the original letter; if, as Bellechasse states, lie wrote through an amanuensis and by dictation, the name of lelfmay have by mistake slipped in in one of the collocatious, although the writ, r never designed it to be there, and never observed that it was there. Now as to Bellechasee, with the exception of this letter to Cox, there is nothing in the r.-cord to impugn or qualify what he says; his laengiage and ideas through, ut are those of an car npost, chivalrous man, who is entirely sincere. There is a further fact, that upon the death of Cila k he avowed that the fifty-one lots of ground had beien placed in his name in secret trust for COlalk's daughter, now Mrs. Gaines. It seems to me that he appears not only as an unimpeached, but as a thoroughly upright witness, and I have nevei read testimony which has impressed me as utter ing more frankly the truths. I think then that the testimony of Mrs. Smythe and that of Bellechasse is unshaken, and they es tablish the will. But they are not alone. De Ia Croix himself was a witness in favor of the sec ond will, though subsequently he sought to vary his testimony. On page 78 of the probate record, he says: "Olark, some months previous to his death, asked me to become titer to Mire;" that a month or two after this conversation he, depo nent, called to see Clark, who had his house on the Bayou Road; lie found him in his cabinet and had just sealed up a packet, the suprecrription on which was as follows: "',Pat e,,ls ounert en P.oe dtie nnti:" that Clark threw it down in presenoo of deponent and told him that it contained his last will and other papers whtih would be of service. It is to be observed, as the Supreme Court of Louisiana noticed, this superscription efftetually proves that this envelope must have contained a will other thab that of the will of 1811. The tee. timony of Boisfontaine, at page 79of the probate record, states that Clark, in his last illness, spoke to him about his last will and testament, and told deponent that he had left the greater part of his property to his child, Myra, and that he had made a disposition in his last will to that effect. He says Clark always told him (deponent) that Myra was his daughter; that he loved her, and would leave her all that he could as a father. It is to be observed that Bellechasse's testimony, at page 162 of the probate record, in reply to the 12th cross interrogatory, states that Judge Pitot, the judge of the Court of Probates, at New Orleans, examinetlithe will after it was finished. Mrs. Marian Rose Daviy, at page 167 of the probate ieoord, In answer to tLe 1tlh Interrogatory, sagye: "When we were about to depart from Louisiana, in 1812, Mr. Clark said that she, Myra, would be his heir; that he intended to leave his estate to her. He spoke in terms of great affection and pecuniary ambition about her, and again said that he should leave her all his estate; his ambition was st eulated to make her very rich." Again, in answer to the 21st interrogatory, "he spoke of her as his heir, and in speaking of her education said he wished her educated in a manner suitably to take in society the standing of the heir to his estate." Samuel B. Davis, page 172, in answer to the twelfth interrogatory, says: "Mr. Clark always did manifest the warmest affection and deepest interest towards his daughter he has repeatedly told me that he intendl d to leave her his prop erty, and I never doubted that he was entirely sincere." To the eighteenth interrogatory, on the same page, he says: "I heard him (Clark) on all occasions express himself in favor of her (Mrs. Gaines) as his daughter and heir; it was an every day conversation when we met." In answer to the twenty-first interroga. tory, at page 173, he says: "It was impossiblo for any lather to have manifested more solici tude and affection than he did. In my last inter view with Mr. Clark his conversation turned al most exclusively on the subject of his child; it was then that I received the instructions relative to her education, about which he seemed to be very solieitus,, and about the place he wished her to take in society when she arrived at the years of maturity." Wm. Miller, at page 179 of thie Probate Record, says, in answer to the twelfth, thirteenth and fourteenth points: "that Clark frequently ex pIress( d much affection for the said child Myra, and stated that he intenled to make ample pro vision for her as one of his heirs." If human testimony can establish a fact, it is here proved by overwhelming testimony that it was the settled purpose of Clark to make Myra his heir by his last will; that for some reason, probably that stated by the Sau reme Court in the 21th of Howard and 6th of Wallace, he did not during his li:etime wish publicly to acknowledge her as his child, or admit the marriage with her mother, but that to all his friends he admitted that she was to be his heir. Now, can any rea son be suggested why Daniel Clark, when the shadows of death gathered round him, should have changed his purpose to have done this late justice to a daughter to whom he was so devotedly attached, and from whom he had withheld the enjoyment of the rights to which, as his child, she was entitled? It seems to me not. It seems to me that as his years ad vanced his attachment to his child and his pur pose to provide for her by his last will, as was natural, continued to increase. Now, when we add to this the clear and undisputed testimony of Mr. Smythe and Bellechasso as to the terms of this will, that it was a will made in Myra's inter est, and precisely such a one as a father, with the settled purpose, which theother witnesses testify he avowed to them with reference to her, would have made, we have here conclusive tes timony not only of his purpose to make this will, but that he did make it. And this testi mony is drawn from precisely the sources where we would have supposed that it would be found to exist, viz., from the intimate friends of the testator. I think if human testimony can establish this will, it is found in this record, and that an olo graphic will, such as is claimed to have existed by Mrs. Gaines, was made, written, signed and dated by her father, Daniel Clark. This brings me to the last question of fact with reference to the will. The will not being found after his death, is the presumption of law overcome by the evidence in this case? Is it proved that the wih existed up to and after the death of Clark? It does not seem to me to be necessary to conclude that Self de etro)edit. Clark may have deposited it with some person who never produced it. What does the evidence show as to the continuance of its existence up to the time of his death? The mind of any one familiar with the evid nec, ii this case, it being established by ir refragable testimony that he had made the will of 1813, won d be reluctantto believe that a father who had by a last wail given all hia property to an only daughter, who trom tile rea son probably that the acknowledgement of the marriage with her mother would hwva inter fered with his personal ambition, had during his lifetime witwheld such acknowledgement from the public; had in fact lived a twofold life, one part of which was necessarily incons:stent with the other, but who had centred upon this daugh ter all the affection which a father is capable of feeling I say the mind of any one won.dreluct antly receive the coviealon that he, without any change in his ciroumstancea, and wtsout amy reason d or assignable, inn 40aýTta smpii. the pr ,vision which he nad made for her through Belleohasse? I do not say that the presumption trising from these central facts in Clarks life would in law be sufficlentto show that the will of 1813 survived him; but I do say they prepare the mind to find in the record the testimony which will establish that fact, such testimony found in the statement of loisfontaine. Bois fontaine, at pages 79 and 80, says that he was with Clark during the last two days of his life he never left i bedside, and that during his last hours he spoke of this will and of the gratifictlon it gave him that by means of it he had provided for his daughter. What more natural than this? What more credible? And it is testified to by a witness who is nneontradicted, excepting by a tcircumstance which has been at tempted to be drawn fromt the testimony of De Is Croix. De Is Croix was made the tutor of Myra in the will of 1813, as well asone of the exet utors. De Ia Croix, in his testimony in the case known as No. 122, at page 531, states in substance, that the day beforer Clark's death he called to bia h ,use and had an interview with him; that noth ing was said about the will of 1113. 'The srgunrent has been pressed with great force by the solicitor for Fuientes et sia., that if Clark then had the will he wotuld have dlivv red it to De is Croix, and I am asked to Infer fromt the silence of Clark in this interview on the suAn. jeot of the will, that it had ceased to exist. The onltnelsive answer t t that argument is that what ever that interview was, it had not, in De Ia Croix's mi ld, destroyed, or at all sbaken his bt. liof that Clark had left the will of 1813 in exist ntce at the time of his death, for at page 11 of the probate secord, be presented to the Judge of 'robate a peotation sworn to by hitm, in which he stated that he had strong reasons to believe, and did verily believe, that thete was a subsequent will doi to that of 1811, whose existence was well known by several persons and asked that the nrotaries of New Orleans be stn)preaed to see if they could not produce the dntllicate of this last will -that is, the will of 1813. It is clear from this aflirlavit, made witi in a day or two, or a few dlays. after the death of Claik, that Lie la Croix not only believed that the will ,r 1813 survived Clark, but that it was executed in uiplicate, antd the clar implietion is that he bieli'ved that one of these duplicate copies had been destroyed after the death rof Clark. It lurtlhcr appears from this allidavit of lie la Criix that he was eaxpressing not only his belief, but the belief of the frienld of Clark. Now I think the conclusion of the Hopremts Court of the Uniterd hiates inl the case of (taintws vs. De Ia Croix, as to the ( feot which should to given to this staternenPt of Ilip, is unanswerable. I think his snbsetltuet testimony given in 1819, after a controversy haid arisen between him antd Mrs. (tain' ss,goes f *r nothing as orntrasted with lis own allilavit mad min 1813, and so far fromt the statements of Do la Croix cntradicting it ie fontaine, they are a it neundoua confirmation of his evidence iupon this ioint, and go far to establish not ,tonly Ihat he bi, loveil that the will of 1813 existed after the death or Clark, but that he I.tli ved it upon eufllcie.t. evidence. I think, therifitre, that tihe presump tion which under the law of Louisana ariese from the non producriiin of the will of 1813, and its dislpparance, is most satisfactotily made ly the evidrnl e in ltis case, snd that it is proved that the will known as the will of 1813 was in existentce after the dlath of the testator. I therefore fird as a fact, that an oingraphio will i'f Daniel Clark, in which Mrs. Gaines was recognized as his legitimati, child, and with the exception of Ihe legacy to his mrnther, and sme other small legacies, was made his universal lega toe, was written, signed and dated by him; that tLi will was clothe 1 with the requisite and legal formalities of a last will and testament according to the laws of Louisiana. Let the decree, therefore, 0e, teat toe prayer or the petitioneers in the case of Fuentes ot al., etc., against Mrs. Myra Olark Gaines, be rejected. I now come to a decision upon what may he termed the rirect actions, viz: the suits in whione Mrs. Gaines seeks to charge these numerous de feonants as trustees, and to recover from them certain real estate, alleging that she was the legitimate child of Daniel lark, and under his last will and testament his universal legatee. I have found as a fact, upon a fresh conside ation of all the evi lence, that her allegations as to the will and her heirship are established. This find ing carries with it all the consequences which are ncessary to establish her title to the property, and leaves nothing remaining to be considered but the plea of prescription. The plea of the respondents is to the fferct that they derived their title and have poassessed the property In good faith, and that this posses sion has continued for longer than a period of ten years. They have thus sought todissever the r title from its origin, and have sought to stand be fore the court simply as possessors with whit they say seemed a good title, and therefore they are possessors in good aith. It is claimed by the solicitor of the etmnplaiuant, and by lis ar alysis of the rsiains of title u!nder which the seve ral defendants hold it, is shown that the title of each and every one of them comes back, or traces itae f back to the estate of Daniel Clark through telf and Chew as the executors of the first will, and as the attorneys in fact f Mary Clark, legatee, under the first will. Indeed, in the supplemental petition of Fuentes et al.. which has been adopted by all these defendan's under the agreement on file, they allege at page 48 of the Fuentes case, 160 and 1t1 of the margi nal paging "that the sa ItH. lelf and B. Chlew were the testementary executors of the said I). Clark under the will of 1811, and were also the agents mnd attorneys in fact of Mary Clark. mother and sole tetameontaryl and legal heir of the said D. Clark, and as sech were the parties through whom tiiese petitioners der.ved title to th i property now claimed biy the said defendant." It is not necessary for aeO to comment upon the ( feet of this juticial admicsiol further than to say that it, is a distiiect avowal that they cairm under Itelf anad U( ow an the executors and attor tneys in fact under the first will, and this le'aves them in the situation of having denied what thi y were legally bound to know. Boe G(aines vs. Htennce, 21 flow. 615, 6;1t; Gaines vs. Meun-sc:ax, 1 Woods, 120. And what they adluit in the Fuoentes case they did know. 'l'These cases are undisti giigl btih e in principle from that of (laines vs. Ilennon. That is both proved and avowed in this case, which was ad mitted there, via: that the title was deirlved from Belt and Chew by the sales under the first w:ll. nuch a titles the Supreme Court of the (United Stales, in the case of Gaines vs. loennen, 24th of Howard, decided was an illegal and vicinnous title, and that the vice of the title took from the vendees all pretense of Ilurchasers or possessors in good faith. In that case the Supreme Court took pains to put into their decree, after reciting th, convey ance from Belt and Chew through these interme diate grantees andj the conveyance to IHFnnen; that the defendant Hennen at the time when he purchased the property so described and claimed by him as aforesaid, was bound to take notice of the circumstances which rendered the acts and doings of the said Relf and Chew'in the premises illegal, null and void; that the said IIennen ought to be deemed and held, and is hereby deemed and held, to have purchased the prop erty in question with full notice," etc. Tois view is adhered to in Gaines vs. New Or leans, 6 Wall, p. -, pp. 716, 717, where the court declare that the question is no longer an open one. The evidence here on both sides as to the mi nority and the interruptions of prescription is precisely what it was in the case last referred to. Indeed, it is all taken fronm the record in that case, and I think the Supreme Court of the United States have settled in the most solemn and au thoritative manner that this plea cannot be urged by these defendants. Let there be judgment, therefore, for the com plainant. COTTON SEED MEAL. Pure and Freshly Ground Meal, of QUB OWN manufacture, for sale by CRESCENT CITY OIL COMPANY. apt lm 21 Unton sreent. NEW ORLEANS LAGER BEER. CASPAR LUSSE, Nos. 476 and 478 Chartrea Street, Announces to the prorietors of BEER SALOONS, antl to t11h public: that having to m t,lete.d his immense auparatus for maiufac turing LAGER BEER, He is preparod to sell the same AT A LOWER PRICE than auy other HOME-MADE AIITI CLE, and of ai- good qpality ias any sirniar arti cle produeod in th- United Stats. mh27 em DENTISTRY. J. B. WALKER, D. D.'S., No. 18a5 e1ad rStreet, Latest Improvements and beet styles of both R. M. & B. J. MONTGOMERY:S Furniture Emporium, ARMORY HALL, 87 CAMP STREET. -0 The Largest and Most Centrally Located Furniture Establishment in the City. -0---- Constantly on hand, and at tho LOWEST MARKET PRIOEB. the largept and beet seleotet assortment of PARLOR G*OODS To ho found In the South, coneslsting of Suits Upholsw red ic Irocatel, Cotoline, Reps, Terry and Hair Cloth, atnd Finished in 011i. MARBLE T' )P INLAID CARD) and FANOY TA. JELE; French PLATE MIRIU)R .- and Patent lag7 CIIAII8; line BEDIROOM BUl'", with French Plus serrrnr, I'resrlr (iiis en" IrrnIre; ma aiftelA Slu nch Plate lIALL R HTANI)DI, wvth HALLJJ'r i to match; DINING-ROOM and ALIBA2Y SUITI d every grade. SA orn ilaee assor lmnt of MEDITIUMand 0011O0 FURNITURE, of every grad', asitable f oouaR and plantation n"9. A large stock of boxed and knoci, down Purni.g. ind Chairs. WPRING, HAIR and MORN MATTIUgtgS 13= Sanrl FEATHER PILi (WR8 and DOL.1T JiB, a LOUNGES, made to ordenr. ALL OF OUR (OOl54 AtRE FROM THE: I'EST FA(TOI1rEN. BOTH EA1S AND WEST, AN I OUt PRICES ARE THE LOWEST I:; THE CIT'. Al! (o.nodel onek"d nii, thlit' d fro ,, orf 'thart',. Thainking ,our ry Ini and the pub. e for th'lr tm-it pat ronnrua. ,. r-olilit a crontinuannii of tho Pnmeo li IIhI tturin. R. M1. &. B. J. MOMNTGOMEI.', Armory Hall. No. 87 Camp Street, Ncw Orleans. tnh3 If 'NOlI NHIIISI0dI One Whole Set of Irons in One. ONE IRON, WITH TWO PLUGO, WILL DO ALL THIE IRONING AND FLUTING ONE HIAND CAN DO WITH ANY NUMBER OF IRONS. It is a Nikel-plated roan Iron. with a wooden hand plae. hnato'l and continually kept hot bIy two alst-iron plugs. ITM ADVANTAGES. r frst Savee onn half or more of the fNOl ordll narily used in Ironling. R"econd ýRav. three fourths of the walk I ýhanging 1 - of the old Sflat fron I, It -. In Iron propes. S Third- Can be heated with oithor coal or wood fire stoves or grates. Fourth--We use Pll stes of the iron and utl Irwo all the heat, thus gaining one-half on the old proress. Fifth-Always clenn; never ruslting, never being ox osed to soot. Sixtht-One single I.eat will iron from thirty mInutes to one hour. according to weight and moisture of the goodls. Seventh --Tho flire yon cook with can be used for ironing, even while tIhe stove i covered with vessels, thus saving the entire amount of fuel used ordinarily in ironing. EIgkth Dooes better work. im parts more I moothnoss and gloss If .rom the inkled Aro than any other Iron in the world. Ninth-Haves time, fiol and labor thus sahs. money; is the only prntlI P'atent Iron on the man rket. nnd will eventually take the placo of the old one-facod irons. J. M. 3BRAU , Sole Agent, 202 Canal otreet. mh24 im BENEFICIAIi TO THE PUBLIC. We. the nndersigned Photogra, hers In the Uniltd tratne dto state and will boar tostimony that PIOTUIt$8 made by LAM1B;ERT'S PATEN PROCESSES are bound to fade and biome worthless. NARONY ................ ....New York. W. KUB'TZ .................New York. LEON VAN LOO ...... ......Clinclaa L J. LANDY.. ................... nclenaatl. F. GUTI KUNMT..........Philadelphia. ALLEN & ROWELL............Bloot. . C. OENTILE & CO............ hicagoe. C. W. MOTES .............Atlanta, Ga. E. KL U ER ...... ..........1 looivllle. RUI.OeNON, President of the Photo graphic Association of the United States of America........ an Frameteo, U-I. D. H. ANDERIN ......Richmond, Va. TliEO. LILIaNTHAL, Mtate of LI,.lslIas. And others, too numerous to mention. THEO. LILIENTHIAL, 1C1............. CANAL STREET ...........121 ft1 3m Southern Shoe Factory OF JOh IIANSEN, $3 and St Canal street, New Orleans. TO ALL SOUTHERN CITIZENR. I am of the same opinion as yohrselves and am determined to help build up the manufac turIng interest of our native State in order to help the laboring classes aolnd keep the money, whiob would otherwise go to the North, at home. About a year ago I started my Factory, and by using the best material and paying my hanad Dromptly. I have been enabled to extend myV business and support 00 women and chlidreD that would have otherwise left the Btae. I order still to increase my Ftory, I would bnenes ad aoort#w woenandc~r0 IHKAT JACH 'on .. NEW ORLEANE A ; 'J)UIAO0 DOUI1LE DAILY T'll ; i TRAINS, will -It ,Lra1 if, ,i' r F,, ,. ,i, from Oa.lopI Mr ' ,' de(vIot from March 2. I. r,: DgPFABT. A llT..L. Expres e .No. l.:30. m. I Ex preos No. .112" a.m Exh rc4ss No,,. t 7:20 in. m. I Express No.. 4. :40,ta. 'is. , and 2 run daIly, 3 and 4 daily except Sucnday. PULLMAN PALACE SLEEPING CASO through to ininnat. Louisville, Chicao. Ca. ro and M n: Tenn., without change, anl forSt Louis a sl(+eper is taken on at Milan, enabling peasengors to go through without leaving tli train. Friday evening's train makes no conneetion at Durnoin for (hilago. Accommodation trains between New Orleans and McComb (iftty: Leave New Orleans 8:83 D. m. Saturday; 7:"d a. in. and 3::10 V. m, Sunday. Arrive, :15 a. in. and 9:20 p. m. Sunday, and 9:15 a. m. Monday. Tickets for sale and Information aven at Camp street, corner Common. nnde( Oty totel. A._D. SELDOlI. Ass t6 E. . D. nos. general ianaer. THE NWE O XT I g ILzS hAIL THE BGREAT TBROiH rOUTE TO T?3 AST. NORTH AND WEST. Via Louisville via Atlanta an St.Lroti. OCARRYING THE U. S MALL. Trains arrive and Depart from Dep(5. I 0t Of Canal street, as fonllows: DEPATr. I AaIIrv Express...... 6:4. a.m. Express...... 11 a. Exp.ress...... :oo p. m. Express...... 9:58 D, 0. Pullman Palace Oars daily to Cincinn , LoU isville, Nashville and St. Louis without olang., and only one change to Now Y'oftad a . .U cities, Ticket Office, corner of Camp and Oommos streets, opposite OBIN Hotel. mh2 tf J. W. OOLIMAN. Tieket Agent. COMMISSION MERCHANTS. ANT. CARRTcna. O. CA1inaU. . L. CABURItu. CAES. J. OA1ama1, A. CARRIERE & SONS, COMMISSION MERCHANTS Corner Royal and Customhouse. Liberal Advances made on Consignments tO our friends in LONDON, LIVERPOOL, jaRu sm HAVRE and BORDEAUX. LEON QUEYROUZE. OSCAR BOIL QUEYROUZE & BOIS, Wholesale .iroeers, DEALERS IN WINES AND LIQUOB8 And all kinds of WESTERN PRODUON, At the Blue stores. Corner Old Levee and Bienville streets, de14 '76 lv New Orleans. ALDERNEY DAIRY - AND - LADIES' LUNCII ROOM, 142 ..... Canal Street .... . 142 Refreshments in home style at living prices. Open from Sa. m. to 9 p. m. Closed on Sundays. mhIb im THE NEW ORLEANS Sanitary Excavating Co., (Incorporated by an act of the Legislature, with exclusive privilege of EMPTYI5NG VAULI'S PRIVIES, SINKS, Etc.) Are now in full operation, and are prepared to perform the above work with promptness and dispatch. The advantages derived from the uas of the Odorless Excavating Apraratus. as used by the company, are that the work eau be performed at any hour of the day or night. the thorough manner in which the deposits are removed. the absence of all offensive odors, the shortapace of time required (an ordinary sink being emptied in from ten to fifteen minutes) and, above all, ITS CIHEAPNE.S. All orders left at the Comrany's office. No. Common street, or sent to Postloflce box No. 91. will renlve rromot attention. mhls im EASTER. HN HAND. A LARGE ANT) BLECT r of Rhine Wines. Plr"nch. Hungarian and California Win.:s. J;.a "a and Santa Or.s tums, Kir-+h and Zwet.swasser, California Fruits and Jellies. For the Coming Holidays. Also on hand, a laroge stock of WhilkieBrna die. C,,gnc, G~ins. Sherries. ort, Abetsnth and ermouth, French and derman Cordials Pilsner's Bottled Beer and German tSeltzer. Sole agent tor J. Kaunmandk Co.'s olncniag Beer, in barrels, anad Star., Tafel and Uhrig Bottled Beer. Also, for Creme de Bo~uxe er nay OhsampsEgna F. HOLLANDER, in·~l~,~(~llaid+ 16118 B:.::.+I::++ +. "+'+:!.