The New York Herald Newspaper, April 1, 1848, Page 1

| . had not demurred to the bill. Whole No, 506%, NEW YORK, SATURDAY MORNIN Whe Decision in the Celebrated Case of Mrs General Gaines Surxeme Count or rue Uniren Srares, December ‘Term, 1847,—Charles Patterson, appellant. ve. und P, Gaines and Myra Clark Gaines, his wife —On ‘pes! from the Cirouit Court of the United States for 6 Eastern District of Louisiana, Mr. Justice Wayne delivered the opinion of the court Tho history of this case will be found in the report of the asae of Gaines vs. Reif and Chew, in 2. How. 619; ‘This is the fourth time that the cause has been before this court Its deoision in each instance, hitherto, has been in favor of the complainynts ‘The third time it was brought bere upon points up- on which the Judges in the Circuit Court were divided in their opinions, They rose upon the argument of deraurrers, filen by several of the defendant: It was said there was @ want of equity in the bill ‘That there was a complete remedy at law. That the bill ‘Wes multifarious, and that there was a mirjoinder of par- ties. ‘Phat the will of 1813, upon which the complain- ants relied for a recovery, had not been admitted to bate; and that if the complainants relied upon Mis. Gaines being the forced beir of Daniel Clark, whatever that right might be, it was recoverable at law Upon the argument of the demurrers, three points were made, upon which fhe Judges could not agree; and they were certified to'this court, for its decision. ‘Those points were: — Ist. Was the bill multifarious, and have the complain- ante @ right to sue the defendants jointly in this oase? 2d. Whether the Court could entertain jurisdiction of the cause, without probate of the will, set up by the complainants, which they charge tohave been destroyed and suppressed ? 2d. Has the Court jurisdiction of this cause, or does it belong exclusively to» court of law? On the first point, this court, for reasons which are as satisfactory to us ux they were to the judges who then heard the argument, decided that the bill was not multi- farious- thet there was no misjoinder, excepting that the purchasers of the property of Daniel Clark had no interest in the rendition ofthe accounts, by the exeou- tors, under the will of 1811; nor any with what might be the interest of Caroline Barnes, in the will of 1813. That those particulars ought not to be connected with the general objsot of the bill, but that it could be so amend- 1 in both respscts, in the Cireult Court, so as to avoid the exceptions Upon the secont point, this court, upon a fall revirw of the authorities, came to this conclusion: that both the general and local law require the will of 1813 to be proved in the Court of Probates before any title can be up Geder it; bat that this result did not authorise a ative waswer to the second point. ‘he court suid, under the circumstances of the oase, the complainants were entitled to full aad explicit an- Swers from the defendants, in regard to the wills of 1813 and 1811, and that such ing obtained, might to es The auswer was pertineat to the inquiry,and nothing beyond it, We have advorted to it to show that the deoree of the Cirouit Court, sow under consideration, has no con- nection with the will of 1813, and that it was made by that court under the answer given by the court to the third poi-t. The third point was, has the court juris liction of the cause, or does it belong, exclusively, to a court of law? This point involves the jurisdiction of the court, in every aspect in which the bill couid be viewed. So the court considered it. The claim made in the bill for Mra. Gaines, did not reat alone upon the alleged will of 1813, but also upon the allegation that she was the legitimate chitd of Daniel Ciark; and under the law of Louisiana was bis forced heir. ‘I'he court said, ‘the complainants in prosecuting their rights, upon the ground of Mrs. Gaines being the heir at Law, no probate of the will of 18(3 will be required. They must rest upon the heirship of Mrs. Gaines, the fraud charged upon the executors to ‘the will of 1811, and notice ef such fraud by the pur- chasers. in this form of procedure, the will of 1811 brought before the court collaterally. It is not an ac tion of nullicy, but a proceeding which may enable ti court to give proper relief without deoreeing the revoca- tion of the will of 1811.” Such were the answers given by this court to the points which had been certified to it. ‘rhe Cirenit Court, in the subsequent trial ofthe cause between the complainants thi ypellant, Mr. Patter- fon, bas decreed that Mrs, Gaines is the forced heir of Dauiel Clark; or, in other worda, that being his legiti- mate child, she was entitled under the laws of Louis- yor to her legitime in his estate at the time of his ‘Thin decree was mado, upon the pleadings and proofs in the cause, put in by the complainants and appellant, Charles Patterson. He was one of the defendants who Before those demurrers had been filed, Mr. Patterson had filed his answer, by his counsel, bat not under oath, having availed himself of eo waiver in this respeot, tendered to the defendants yy the complainants. To that answer there was a gene- ral replication. The parties having introduced thei: proofs, the case was regularly in order for a hearing. It at tho eurnest desire of both parties. No suggestion was wade in the Circuit Court below, that it J would direct an issus to be made for the trial of the Jegitimacy of Mrs. Gaines by jury. No such desire © bas been expressed by the counsel of the appellant , Unough it was intimated that it ought to hay We do not think it an occasion for considers that justice will best be ob- ‘tained by thet cou Discretion, we mean as it is guided by what has been the practice of courts of chan- cory, Gardver vs. Gardner, 22d Wendell, 526 ; Drayton aod Logen, Harps Eq 67,3 page 457, 601 Iu the English chauoery, except in the cs at lew, or of # rector or vicar, it isnot a matter of right In the American courts Fy ‘tice establishing an iss matter of right In Vir- ginia and otbers of our States, the heir’s right toan isnus is given bystatute, As the English chancery in the @xoeptions mentioned as » matter of right, las allowed them upon the ground that the common law “ invests a party filling a particular nituation with certain rights of which itis the object of the suitto divest him, we presume that where by operation of tac law ia either of the States, particular persons have an interest in the property of an ancestcr—that whatever might be the evidence in favor of the authenticity and genuineness of ‘the will—if the heirs at law object to its being done, the court will not establish the will, without the opinion of B Jory upoa & devisovit vel non” We have recurred to what has been hitherto decided in this owuse concerning jurisdiction, to prevent here- after, in the farther progress of it, against any of the defendants, any doubt about it—and that the principles upon which this court has asserted it, might be better understood than they seem to have been at the bar. The Cizenit Court i) rendering its decrea understood it per- fectly. We have been particular, too, in repsating what wes ceciled by this court in 2d How. 619 —because it compreuends the subject matter upon which the juris diction of the couct was affirmed, and covered all who were pectios, with the exceptions mentioned, and their obligntious to answer, either joiatly or ly, the @ bill, es they pleased, though the whole of , OF amy lesser numer, might haye a common defence. The ob- jest being thai a final decree might be made betwoen . the complafnants and each dofendant, provided the inte- rest or propsriy upon which the deores is to attach was @ part of the property of Daniel Clark, and now separate ineach defendant, who might answer separately, or in *gny two or mora of them, who might do so jointly—or the defendants, as they had a right to do, except such of them as have already chosen not to answer con- jointly end have answered separately, should make @ common answer; that the deorce between the pertics might be common to all,and attaoh upon the property of Daniel Clurk in their hands, if the complain. Ants wake out the right of Mrs. Gaines as forced beir of Danii Clark. This disposes of the question of jurisdio- tion, and of the suggestion made in the course of the ar- gument of (be cauas here, though not strongly insisted “ngou-—that the jarisdictioa or practice of the court did wot permit ® separate decree vgainst Mr. Patterson, or any other defendant in th iw. Ifthe decree - gainst, f the defeadants determines the character of the watter or property for which he is sued, taaking tof what shall be the aggregate from which the nant’s interest is to be ealcula ed, it isa final d end perfec: against the defendant, though it may re the confirmation of a farther order of the court flare it oa be acted upon. Asin cases of foreclosure, re a fund may de distributable among a particular or where, in the distribution of an stare™ it becom senary to direct * master to report upon its kind or value, ke. ko, of which there is a full illustration in| ‘oreo given by this court in the caso of Michoud and Giro, 3 How. 543, ‘The couse is now bi or oiggs yf individuals ore this court upon the appeal of Iearnod counsel, Mossra, Brent in favor of the reversal of the decree, may be a8 follows: | There inno circumstantial evideno: the mar: ieage between the mother of Mrs. niel Clark. ‘24. Tho testimony of Madame Dospan, who d that sho was presen’ the marriage, is not entitled to belief on many accounts. Clurk’s acknowledgments that Myra, M was bin legitimate child, even if admissible ictory, it Dela Croix has spoken the truth, spoke differently of her to shat witness; and thi » Ate intrinsically overruled by his most solema acts, in Mtealthtiy providing for her, by blind trusts, aad more efveoially by the will of 18it. th Gonceding, exemp!i gratia, that there was a fac- tm of the alleged marrigge, etill there is proof #f the martiage of the mether of Mrs. Gaines with De Grange, Stl no legalor satisfactory proof of the nullity of that Marriage; because De Graage’s confessions, that he had & Wife ali/e wt the time he married the mother of Mrs Gaines, aro not evidence; particularly not so in this ato, 68 tho appellant’doet not oflim the property for which he is sued, under De Grange. The argument of ‘counsel UPON the point of a previous and subsisting mar- tinge, wor this:—Thoro is direct proof of a marriage Detween Zuline Carriere, the mother of Mrs Gaines, ‘and De Grange. To annul it, there is no other testimo- iy than the hearsay of De Grange’s confessions, and lette’s declarations that. when De Grange married Zuline, he wes thon a married man. That it was a fr ear Seta bling teenie as stioh was the 7 erself Mra De Grange, an Glalming to be the wife ot Do Grange, come te New Oo Joons in pursuit of hing, asher husband. It is said if sho did, hor aaggrtions were equally hearsay. Reputation io New Orloans, (bat the marriage with Zaline was null would be no evidence of the fast. , it te naid ‘ attempt to prove De Grange’s conviction ishtnnre, But even if the record of his Sentael had been produced, which was not done, it is res inter th ecta; and could not be admitted against 4 aes: not olaim under De Gi thee yances from Ghe executors to tnewill tei" counsel also contend, whether they are right or hi ‘ te Be wrong in the foregoing positions, it is jatter of m0 consequence, except as showing the history of the case ; and tendin< to nt further litigation, Because, b the teed Ln Faget re: rg bi thie oda the be af jeclared, that a person hol property by from a donee of an excessive donation ia only liable to the forced heir, r an execution first had against the W prscatd of the dones. Under both codes, too, the third possessors are only liable in the order of their pur- chases. That tho legitime of tho forced heir is not to be recovered in the specifi property, but in the value of the fa rye as it may be ascertained under the Louisi- ana codes. For those last positions, counsel rely upon the language of the codes and upon the case of Hodden vs Shepard et al. 1 Louisiana R. 5@5. That was a case which arose under the code of 1808; but is cited in the new code an a judicial exposition of both the old and new code in this respect. It is said that this case is within the provisions of the code under the decision just cited, a8 Mary Clark, the mother of Daniel Clark, and «tandmother of Mrs Gaines, as universal logatee of her aon by the will of 1811, accepted the succession of his estate, as the law of Louisiana required it to be done. That her power of attorney to the executors, Chew and Relf suthorized them to make sales of the property of Daniel Clark, as they were made, and gave to the pur- chasers valid titles, without any order of the Probate Court, or any judicial sale being neoessary. That the urchasers are not liable to be sued at all, until tne forced heir exhausts the property, or in ether words dis- curses the rights or property of ho grandmother in her son’s estate. ‘The statute of limitation, it was also said, barred @ re- covery by the complainants ‘We bave stated more particularly than we would otherwise have done, the arguments urged by the coun- sel of the appellant, and in the strongest way in which they were presented. It was due to the importance of the case—to the interest of all concerned in this con- troversy,and beeause the arguments of both of the coun- sel command our respect. Parte of some of these objec- tions have our acquiescence; others have not. Our conclusions relating to the marriage of the mother of Mrs. Gaines to her father—the lawfulness of the mar- riage, and that sho is the legitimate offspring of that Fo ad differ from all that has been urged against em. The marriage, the legitimacy of Mrs Gaines, and the valicity of the sales made by the oxecutors, make the eubstance of this case, put in issue by the pleadings. Were those pleadings diferent trom what they are, there would be enough to prove the marriage and the legitimacy of Mrs. Gaines. But as the pleadings are, wo cannot, upon the evidence, exclude such conclusions The marriage must be proved according to what would be proof of it, where it took place. This marriage ‘ook place in Pennsylvania, at Puiladelphia,in the pre- sence of » witness who says she was present; and that the ceremony was performed by a Catholic priest. Mar riage is a civil contract in Penasylvania, to be completed by any words in the present tense, with regard to form. Hantz and Sealy, 6 Binney, 405. '“‘ Marriage to be do- cided by the laws ofthe piace where celebrated.” Phil- lips and Gregg, 10 Watts, 168. Every intendment made iu favor of legitimacy. Senser and Bower, 1 Penn, Reps. 453 ‘The dill asserts the marriage, its lawfulne’s, and that Mrs. Guines is the issue of the marriage ; the answer is a denial of these allegations. The plaintiffs file a general replication, But as the appellant accepted the waiver offered in the bill, that their answers might be put in without being sworn to, and did not swear to hi ue is not entitled to have the benefit of his answer, as a deaial of the plaintiffs case, unless the tradicted by the evidence of two witnesses, or by one and corroborating ciroumstan Geary, 5 Peters 99, In the case of the Union Bi this court said :— Indeed, we are inclined to adopt it as wer not under oath, is neral rule, ‘hat an 0 considered merely asa denial of the allegations of the Dill, analagous te the general iesue at la 7 the complainant to the proof of such al Gale, 4th Paigs, ch. Rep., says:— But where an answer on oath is wai though as a pleading the complainant may avail him- self of admissions and allegations ia the answer, which 40 to establish the case made by the bill, such answer is aot evidence in favor of the defendant for any purpose. Ananswer is always under oath unleas plaintiff chooses to dispense with it, and thon t.» court will order the answer of the defendant to be taken without oath. But whether the answer is not sworn to by the order of the court, when the plaintiff waives it, or the waiver has been voluntarily acespted by the do- fendant, it is not evidence in his favor for any purpose; as this court said in 5th Peters, just cited, it is analagous to the general issue at law; and @ single undisoredited witness will be sufficient to prove the allegations in the bill which the answer donies. There is such a witness in this case. We do not intend, however, to put the con- clusion to which we have come respecting the marriage solely upon her testimony. It is 60 strongly oorrobora- ‘ed by other proofs, that the answers would be disprov- ed, if it haa been sworn to. Madem Despau jel Clark was married in Pailadelphia, in 180: lic priest. I was pre- sent at the marriage; one child was born of this mar- riage, to wit, Myra Clark, (now Mrs, Gaines,) who war- ried William Wallace Whitney,son of Gen T. Whit- ney, of the State of New York. I was mt at her birth, and knew that Mr. Clerk claimed and acknow- lodged her to be his child. She was born in 1806 I neither knew, nor bad any reason to believe, any other child besides Myra was born of that marriage.” The witness then proceeds to relate, what she terms the cir- cumstances of the marrisge, iucluding the Hous saurringe of Zuline Carriere with De Grange; his sub- sisting marriage, when he married Zuline, and the re- sult or it, when that fact had been discovered by Zuline and her family. This witness is not discredited in any of the ways, or for any of the causes, which can allowably bo used for such # purpose. She is not contradicted by any wit- ness. Marriage may be proved by any person who was present and can identify the parties. St. Devereux vs. M. Dew, Churoh, Burr. S. C. 506. 1 W. will be good presumpti Lacon vs Higgius, 3 Stark, 178, Marriage by a persdn habited as a priest per verbu de presenti, ( performing the ceremony) niust be presumed to have been « clergymau—R. v.. Seampton, 10, Fest 1282. Inwhat way {9 the attempt made to lessen the force of her testimony? Inno other than by negative 8 of other persons, who knew Clark, that they do not believe he was «ver mar- ried And by the witness, Do Ia Croix, who says—and ha isthe only witness who rays so—that Clark spoke to him of Myra, as his natural ohild. A huadred such witnesses would not be sufficient to impeach the testi- mony of one wituess swearing positively to the force of the marriage; and, allowing that Clark ald so speak to De la Croix, & husband’s declarations of the illegitimacy -fachild, when the marriage has been 40 proved, is not safficient to rebut the presumption of ita haviag been lawfaily begotten, until ths presumption is disproved by evidence showing the want of access between the hus. band and wife. Bury and Philipot, 2, Mand K., 349. Ones the marriage is proved, nothing shall be allowed to impugn the legitimacy of the issue, short of the proof of facts, showing it to be impossible that the husband could on the father. See opinion of the Judges, in Banbury Peerage care, by Le warchant. Accessis presumed, un- Jona the contrary be plaialy proved. But all the other witnesses, some of whom were more ia Clark’s confidence than De La Croix was, say that he spoke to them of Myra es his legitimate cbild, calling ber euch, . Pierre Baron Boisfontaine declares. that Clark treated isa as a confidential friend, in matters relating to Myra, and to his affairs generally. That he was with Clark when he died He Clark repeatedly spoke to him of Myra, as his leg’ te child. Nearly his last words were about her. And further, he spoke of her mother with great respect; and frequently told me, after her vartiage with Gardette, that he would hi made his marrisge with her public, if that barrier had not been but that she was blameless. Harriet Smith saye, Me Clark and my late hus- ©. Harper, were intimate friends, &0. I ruckled infaney, Mr. Clark’s ter, Myra. I did it having suffered from voluntarily, ta consequence of h the hired nurses, Mr, Clark considered he interesting and trathful of tho relations between the birth to the time of his death; and his frequent deota: lions that he would seknowledge her as his legitimate ohild, wus 9 strong impressions upon any reader of ig, that she was such, Bellechasae, the intimate and confidential friend of Clark for many years, wud who proved himaelf, as the fnotein the ease show, worthy of that relation, says, “with much refisotion and detiberation Clark spoke ot his being occupied in preparing his last will, On there ocoaaionn, in the mphatio inanner, he apoke of My jant will, wad that he should in 16 timate child,and heiress of all 5 Madame Calileret, the eister of Zuline, says not present wt the m: et sister with Mr. Clark, * but Ido Proposals of marriage with my sister. Mr. Clark’s proposals of marriage re made ofverit became known that her marrisge th Mr. De Grange was void; from the fact of his hi hen, and at the of his marrying her. a living wife.” “These proposals were deferred, being accept- ed, until the record proof of De Grange’s previous marriage could be obtained, and Zaline with her sister, Madame Despan, sailed for the north of the United States, to obtain the record what Madame Despau likewise says ot Clark’s proposale of marriage “Mr. Clark made proposals of marriage to my sister, with the knowledge of all our family. eovsidered errential first to obtain record proof of De Grange’s having @ living wife at the time he married my sister ; to obtaia which from the records of the Catholic Church in New York, (where Mr, De Grange’s prior marriage Was celebrated,) we sailed for that city. Mr. Clarke errived after us We heard that a Mr. Gardetio, then living in Philadelphia, waa one of the witnesses of Mr. Da Grange’s prior marriage, We proceeded to that city, and found Mr, Gardette. He answered that he had been yer at the prior marriage of De Grange, and that ho afterwards knew De Grange and his wil this marriage—that this wife had eailed for France. Mr Clark then seid, you have no reasou any longer to refuse being married to me. {t will, however, ba necessary to keop our marriage seorot, till | have obtained judicial proof of the nullity of your and De Grange’s marriage. Clarke and Zut then marred’? Madame Des- pau then relates thelr return to New Orleaus, the pro- narrati the! teoution of De Grange for bigamy, hie Imprisonment, ape, from the country, “ it Reriogsetarntd \elouiame sgaing) oe AI this bap the iets He ue riage with my bela an action against the name of De Grange. The pated change of government caused de it at 1 ngth, in 1806, Mesers, James Brown and E! Fro- mentin, as the counsel of my sister. brought sult againat the name of Jerome De Grange, in the city court of New Orleans.” Now, rejecting all that Gardette ts said to have ssid, all that Madame Despau says of the prosecution of De Grange ter rif and of the appearance of a femaly ia New Orleans claiming De Grange for her husband, as not being within the allowable limits of hearsay testi- mony, in @ question of pedigree, the concurring testi mony of two witnesses ia the fawily, as to Mr. Clark's, proposals of marriage, is such # corroboration of the declaration of one of them, that the marrige took in her presence, to make a basis broad enough to receive tho declarations of the father, and his affectionate treatment of his child, form her birth to his death, as conclusive of his marriage with her mother, and of her legitimacy. Such declarations, where there are probe- | bie grounds of a marriage, aro the best proof in « quer- tion of pedigree. Just such—though they are within what i+ termed hearsay—as exporience has shown to be | mecessary, in cases of doubt, to eatablish conjugal rele- tions and the legitimacy of children. Such declarations, unlike those which De la Croix ssys Mr. Clark med to him, have always been received to establish the logiti- acy of a child, with or without proof of marriay and when there is in a case the positive testimony of 01 mitones to a marriage, they are conclusive proof of legi- macy. What is urged against such a conclusion in this case? The conduct of the parties in not promulgating their marriage and not occupying the same house, upon thelr return to New Orleans. In connection with that com) duct, the testimony of De Ja Croix, that Col. and Mrs_ Davis, who reared Mxs. Gaines, at the request of hii father, know nothing of his marriage; that the witnesses, Mr. Coxe and Mr. Hulings, who were for 2 loug time th: intimates of Mr. Clark—the former his partner in bu.~ wear, to the bestocf their belief, that ho nev > ied; aud the subsequent connection with Gardetts, without « dissolution of the marriage with Mr. Clark. Tae first is a good objection until it has been reasone bly accounted for. We do not mean so accounted for » to make it proper, but enough so to separate such cor | duct from the suspicion of an illicit connection. Madame Deapau declares, when the marriage was con tracted in Philedolphia, and afterwards upon their arr’ val in New Orleans, that Clark sald the marriago coulu net be disclosed on’ acecunt of Zuline’s provious mar- riage with De Grange, That legal proof must bs ob tained of the previous marrings of D> Grange, and that bn action would have to be brought by Zuline * agains 5 Wy name.” This is substantially confirmed by Madame Jaillaret in her statement of the proposals for a mar riage by Mr. Clark, aud it having been deferred for the reason given by Madome Despeu for its concealment ~ It is confirmed by what other witnosses say, as well as Madame Despau, of the axvest and imprisonment of De Grauge for bigamy, to which they all swear as within their own knowledge,and by the subsequent proceedings in the city court against De Grange, (Record 206.) con neot the proceeding with the mode of procesding iv Louisiana, to impeach a marriage with one unable to con- tract marriage, its existing ation to De Grange, and what might then ha its application to Mra ¥ her marriage in Philadelphia had been disclosed before a sentence of the nullity of her marriage with DeGr had been ebteined; and we shall have facts, from whis! motives for concealment of it may be inferred diverse from, and stronger then the usual suspicion of its hav- ing been caused by an illicit intercourse. It was not cessary to the validity of the marrioge in Philadelphia, that asentence of dissolution should have been first pro- nounced in Louisiana, agai De Grange. By the law of the latter, as well as by the law of Pennsylvania, the marriage with De Grange wes void from the beginolug. 4 void marriage imposes no legal restraint a the pe: ty imposed upon to contract another, though sad delicacy do, until the fact is so generally not to be a matter of doubt—or until it has been i senna in @ judicial proceeding, wherever that may be one. Mr. Clark probabdl: knew what we have just stated, concerning the validity of his marciaga; b pride and temper, me character has this record, was it not probable, not to say netural, thal such a man, anticipating his return to Louisiana, would cesort to the course which was pursued, to keep bis feelings from being wounded, until « judicial sentence had reinstated his wife to the unequivocal condition en- joyed by, her before the imposition of De Grange—w? ‘speak of the fact, and not of its propriety. ‘The lattet has not our approbation; but wo recognise, what all of 1 kaow to be true, that concealment is as frequent- ly the refage of error as it is of cr: men of the world shun more than anyt! alse, the exposure of their follies, more es} ally such as tho orld may think to be so, and ie ing upon the honor of the most delicate relation which @ man can form in life. It is not a fiction that nen have been so situated as Mr. Clert wT. who hay died. without disclosing, as he did, even in behalf of their unoffending children, such @ relation, and that women have been found to bear it. Such reflections would havo 20 with such proof, that thay are to presumption of itimacy in this instance, arisi' the concealment of the marriage, or from th it not ocoupying the same house. Tho o' antil now, has deprived his child ofthat legitimate fog which he was most anxious to give her, and which, asems to have pressed most heavily apon him at the Lour ofhis death. Bolsfontaine says, in reply to the third oross int rrogatory, “He spoke of her mother with great reapect, and frequently told me, after her marriage wit! Gardette, that he would have made his marriage with her publio. if that barrier had not been made, and fre- ntiy lamented to me that it had beon auads, but that she was blameless. He said he would naver give Myra s step-mother. When, in 1813, he communicated to me that ho was making his will, he showed great sensi- bility as to her boing declared logitimate in it, While I was with him in his death sickness, und even at the mo- raent he expired, he was in perfect possession of hin senses, and no parent could have manifested greater 4!- fection than he did for her. Nearly his last words wo. sbout her,” &. , aaes with him was near its end, and the truth was tot De la Croix’s testimony, in the particular in which it is relied upon, differs from that of every other witness who has di to what Mr. Clark said to them repeat- edly of thi timacy of his child. We reg: it the less, for notwithstanding his intimacy with Clark,and the confidence which he had ia De la Croix’s suitableness to be the guardian of Myra, he says: Mr. Clark mever spoke to him about her, excspt on the occasion when he was asked to becoms his executor and her tutor —Record 233, 234 This deolaration to De la Croix, supposing it to have Seon made in connection with the occasion, when he says it wes made by Mr. Clark, is the teetimony in the record most relied upon to disprove the legitimacy of Mes. Gaines. But it cannot be allowed to excsed, in weight, tha testimony of several other witnesses who were mero iatimate with Mr. Cierk than De la Croix was, who, from factsin the cause, independently of any declaration of theirs, seem to have had more of his confidence, and to whom Mr. Clark spoke very differently of the same fact: A single declaration, direoily the reverse of many te the same fact, may be made in such a manner, by the same porson, as to disable us from coming to # conclusion co- incident with that which the many assert. But if the latter are associated with other proofs bearing upon the point, derived from otzer persons, stronger than aay proofs which can be connected with the contradiction of them, we have @ rule to guide us in our estimate of both, making the many prevail over the one, though it might dudependently of all other proof connected with either, bring us to an opposite conclusion. The tes! mony of De ja Croix cannot stand the test of this rulo. ‘Setting aside all that the other witnesses say to the con- trary, there is the oath of one witness who swoars to the marriage, which raises an iatendment of legitimacy in the offspring, conclusive until it has been disproved Against such aruls, suspicions or doubts, not risting upon proofs as trong an the proofs of tao marriage, must not be indulged. Bat for a brief illustration of tas rule, etus take the case De le Croix says: Mr. Clark told him, upoa the only ocoasion he ever spoke to him ot My- tho was hia natural child. Madame Despsu saya she was presont at the marriago of Mr. Clark to the mo- thor of Myra. Boisfontaine says: Mr. Clark suid to him, speaking of ths mother of Mrs. Gaines, that he would re made his marriage with her public, but for her sub. Now, where is the weight of proof? Does Dela Oroix’s testimony exoeed that of the witness who swears to the marriage, and also Clark’s declaration to Soisfontaing admitting it? The contrary declarations may neutralise each other, in this aspect of the case, without lessening the positive. in such » case, we choice of conclusions, sitive proves. testimouy of De la Croix has been treated was altogether nnexceptionable. It is uot #0, Phere 19 in it that cold hardness of a man of the world, 4 of former friendship, whilat professing to regard them; but little in unison with kind- ness, and not at all so with the seriousness of exact . Such men will not swear to what is fale, but they moy Rone Yon is not teas, by an indifference to exactnoss in what they do say, Do ia Croix’s testimony is twice in tha record taken at differont times, and we have it both in French and English. No injustice is done him by translation. ‘hey are not contradictory of other, to justify, of themselves, any charge aguest iuis intentional veracity; but they differ in particulars, about Myra as well as ef other persons ,to make it right, that it should, asa whola, bs received with great cau- tion. Besides, for there must be no disguise of the f which bring us to our conciusion concer sing his testi mony, there isnpon the record # pecuniary relation between himself and the estate of Daniel Clark; which, unexplained, does not leave a favorabie impression of his imparttality in thie affsic, Again, suppose tho fact of legitimacy in this cave had beou placed altogether upon the evidence of Belie- chasse, and De la Croix, that of the latter would not have been proof of it But if Belleehasse’s testimony is fortified by that of others, speaking ax atroacly ar he does, of Clarke’s declarations of his daughter's lexiti- macy, it would not be reasonable to discard it for the testi- mony of De la Croix, which is unsupported by any other witness, Is the’ conclusion one levs of proof, be. cause Col. and Mra. Davis, who reared the child, at the request of hor father, were ignorant of his marriage! Because Mr. Coxe and Mr. Hulings, who knew him well, say that they knew nothing of ‘Mr. Clark’s m , the two last declaring #0 to the best of thoir liet? All of this in negative testimony, implying iguo- rance of the factof which they aj and not knowledge of it—a fact on at Of positive proof, or of proof by facts from wi marriage: be inferred. The yh Seememeny ot Mo, Co ir. Heiegs ona De ix, respect marriage, is exciuded from 1» from not lyon pepe ‘the rules by Dearsay is admissible in Of pedigree, Neither Cc if 4 them relate any thing 4s coming from the parents of or the relations on either side of the marriage The only point in which the testimony of Mr Coxe differs from that of Ma Despau, is in hie narrative of the arran; nt ma‘ y him, at the request of Mr Clark, for the birth of Caroline, now Mra. Barnes. Madame Despau says she was the child of De Grange. Mr. Coxe, that Clark told him the e was his child These deolsrations are at variance with each other as to the fet, but not contradictory. The fact may be as one or the other witness bas related it. The difference, therefore, does not at all discredit Madame Despau. But the ignorance of Col. and Mrs. Davis of the mar- riege, inc joa with the arrangements which were jo by them at the req of its father for the birth of the ohild, and tho fath; great confidence in them, it is naid, is extraordinary and unaccountable. But ia it not equally so, that under such circumstances, he should not have communicated to them the reverse? ‘Tho lat- ter is ordinarily the usual confilonce between the par. ties upon such oceasions, and when itis not made an inquiry, suggests itself at once why it was uot done. Ite t haviog been done, though extraordinary, proves nothing either one way or the other; the mind is left to connect other facts with it, for the purpose of enabling ug to conclude what inference oan justly be made from such an incident, so much out of the way of the oonfi- PRIL 1, 1848. denoe between parties upon such oecasions. There are no such facts in this case to aid such am objection.— There are facts independent of it, which happened af- terwards, which repel it Ths witnesses speak of the oxtrpordinary affection manifested by Mr. Clark for | this obi'd, his daily visits, parental and endearing fond- + aess, his Sostly prsents and manifested pride in her, aa time dovelop:d her mind and appesranes, avd that he alwys celled her Myra Clerk Allof this ia not incon- Veldeut with whet men of generous temper will and | should J» to pe: le se mnoh ae they can fn such oases, | thelr iadisoretion as vo the birth of a child. But when | a parent doasit, with subsequent declarations, made over and ovor again to soveral persons, of # child’s le- ritimacy, thay may woll be united with the latter to re- move the objection tht Mr. Clark had not mentioned his marriege to Colonel and Mra, Davis Besides, let it be remembered that the evidence shows, up to that time, he had montioned his marriage to 10 one, Ma- damo Despau, his wife, and himself only, knew the se- oret; and his influenos over them made it his own, until ‘hey could apaak fre from the apprehensions exelted in them by his declaration that the iarriage wan not to be disclosed until the marrisge with De Grange had beon judicially unauiled He wad & mon of no ordinary charicter or influenco upon those who ware about him His natural fitness to control beoams habitual, as his wealth and standing incveased, and it was exercised and involuntarily yielded to, by all who assoolated or who were in business with him. “Ho was «man of high quali- ties, but of no rigor of virtue or self-control. En- orgetic, enterprising, courageous, ailectionats and geuerous; but with 'a pride which had yielded to no mortification, until bis affection subdued it to @ sense of justice, in behalf of his child As to Mrs. Clark’s subsequent connexion with Gardotte, whilst sho was the wife of Mr Clark, considering it alone, or with those reasons which huve been urged against the fact of that merriage, our conclusion is, that, inexcusable as her conduct was, thore is not enough to mako the fact of the marriage with Mr. Clark doubtful. Disoarding from our consideration, altogeth- er, the irritation acd impositions to which this female had been subjected, from her girlhood, and her well- founded fears of the fidelity of Mr. Clark ; and admit- ting she was very deficient in her apprehension of the sacredness of marriage ; however it may ex her virtue and her affection for her lawful husband, to con- clusions against both, we do not deem it to be a fact strong enough to set aside-tha testimony of one witaeas, who swears positively to ber marri: with Mr, Clark, and all the corroborating proof of that fact, in ths case. It will raise a suspicion against the marriage, in this most curious and originul chapter of domestic tife, uot easily removed from the minds of those who indalgs it. But we cannot permit it to prevail over the legitimacy of her child, established, as we think ourselves obliged to say, ithas been, in conformity with those rules of evidence which long exp rivnco and the wisdom of those who have gone before us in courts of equity, have deemed the best, to ascertain, in cases of doubt, the affinity and blood relationship of social life. But it is still said, admit the marriage with Clark to havo taken place in Philadelphia. that Mrs. Gaines can- not inherit from her father, hie marrige with her mother being void, on account of her previous marriage with De Grange ‘Tols'will depend upon the marriaze with DeGrange having been # valid marriege, or upva its being void, for one of those causes which disablos persons from con- tractivg marriage. The burthen of proof in such a case is not upon the party asserting the validity of the second marriage; but cathe other, who asserts its invalidity ou account of the validity of the first. Both are affirinative declara- tions. Ei inoumbit prebatio gut digit, non qui negat. “Pao ecgument is, the werriage With Grange stuade mo the way of any right of Mrs. Gaines to inherit from her father, until the record of the conviction of De Grange, tor bigamy, has been produced. We do not understand the law to be so. A bigamist may bo proved 80, in civil suit,by any of thoso facts from whic! ee may boinferred. Reputation of marriage is not enough; but facts from which it 00 infe |, are so. Ina prose- cution for the offense, there must be proof of an actual marriage. The confession of the bigemist will be suf- ficient, in a civil suit, when made under circumstances which imply no Objection to it, as a confession. De Grange did make such # confessim. Madame Benqae- rel says, in answer to the seventh interrogatory put to her, “My husband and myself were very intimate with h |, De Grange, and when we reproached him for bis base- nieas, in imposing upon Zaline, he endeavored to excuse himself, by saying, tuat atthe time Ate a dese Io her,he had abandoned bis lawful wife, aud never intended to ses her sgain” Reoord 212. And her answer to the cross interrogatory am not felated to, nor con- neoted with the defendant, nor with either of them, nor with the mother of the said Myra, nor am I interested at all in Chis suit, It was in New Orleans where [ obtained information, It will be seen by my answers bow [ Iwas well acquainted with De Grange id Zulins, and I knew the lawfal wide of the ‘ango, whom he had married previous to his ; himeeif in marriage upon Zuline.” ‘ho credit of this witness -is unassailed. Here, then, {s proof enough of a subsisting marriage betwoen De Grange and another female when ho married Mrs. Gaines?’ mother, to invalidate the latter. Bat supposes Madame Benqaerel had not given such testimony, or that her credic had been successfully as- sailed, what would then ba the state of the objection! Jasé this: as all the other witnesses who speak of the prosecution of De Grange for bigamy, speak of his con, vistion only a4 hoatsay, or common report, the defendant cannot call upon the plaintiff tor record proof of it without placing himself in the inconsistent atti- tade of ejecting the hearsay, to bs proof of i exist- enoe, but giving to him the right to call for its produc. tion The testimony of Madame Benquerel was intro. duced by the plaintiffs, without any obligation upon hem to have done so. It establishes the fact ot De Grange’s previous martiage, for all the purposes of this controversy. The denial the answer of the defend- ont, that Mr Clark wi married, is the assertion of © fact of which the defendant cannot in the nai things have positive knowledge, and is, therefor tore than doolaration of his belief. One witness, therefore, overrules the denial. But there is no force in this objection, for another rea- von, When in the progress of a ruit in equity, a quos- tion of pedigree arises, and there is proof enough in the opinion of the court to establish the marriage of the an- cester, the presumption 'ef law ia, that a child of the mar- riage is legitimate, and ft will b» incumbent upon him who dentes it to disprov, it, though in doing so he may have to prove.a negatives. Farther, apo; “point, the record of De Grange’s conviction cenadt be cailed for, as thore is proof that it could not be found in the proper office in New Orleans where itshould be, Tho complainants do not rely upon guob proof to establish the fact that Ds Grange was a jay would prevail against the decree, if jhaser. It in not so. ienes of the purchasers, who bought the pi ty at suction, in the year 18)0, from uw xeoutors of Mr. Clark, under the will of 181 it in ndmitted that th property was @ part of Mr. Clark’s estate, when he died. ‘These sales were made without any authority, judi- cial or otherwise. They were made after tho time, when, by the law of Louisiana, the relation of the sell- ers, an executors, had expired. Nor can it bs avid that they were legaion account of the power of attorney, given to Mr. Relf and Mr. Chew,|by Mrs. Clark, the mother, and universal legates of the testator, She could give no power to the executors, to dispense with the law presoribing the manner for making the sale of s aucoes- tion, Her power of attorney was not of itself, nor was it treated by the executors, to make for her’ a legal a0- ceptance of the succession. It waa neither an oxpress nor a tacit eee ora of the succession, casting upon her the responsibilities resulting to a donee of a succer- rion, by ite sooeptance, It might havo been wrodas nn not done by her, from which her intention to acoapt the succession might have been inferred, which would have been a legal aeceptance. But it waa not so treated; ua til the acceptanos was mado, as the law required it to be, ovary ‘act performed under it by the attorneys, was void fhe power was also given when the possession of the estate was lawfully in the exeoutors, for the purpose of enabling them to disonarge their functions sccording to law. Itoould not invest them with any power, either when their connexion with tho estate as executors ex- inted, or afterwards, to rell any part of it, in a way not permitted by tho law Oho of the executors, Mr. Rell, received lattors (os'a. mentary on the 47th August, 1812 The other, Mr. Chew,on the 2ist January, 1814. Without doiay, on the same day that he reovived letters, Mr. Relf ap- plied for leave to sell the moveable and immoveabie pro- perty of his testator. It was gramtet For reasons stated in a subsequent application, he applied for an ex- tension of the order as to the time for makinga sale [t was allowed, without any alteration of the times for ad- vertising the property he wished to sell, as fixed in the The firet Mr. Patterson was such The defendant is the first order. The moveable effects wore to be advertised ten days. The slaves and other immoveable effects, thirty days. The defendant depends upou thes orders for the regul-rity of the sales and the validity of the purchase made by bis allenor, Corrogoles, the original purchaser. The sale of the proparty bought by Cor- regolea was made in 1820, The time for making the sales according to the order of the court, had passed more than six years. The time with: in which the exeoutore could act ss such, by the law ef Louisiana, had expired hoy had’ neither legal nor delegated authority from the donee ot the estate, recognized as such by the law of Louisiana, to take the sale, It wate sale without judicial order—a salo in disregard of and in violation of the law—one which the law of Louisiana makes absolutely void. If con- fidered at having been made under the orders for aale, given by the court, it is also absolutely void. It is ne: cvssary to show in all cases of forced sales, meaning such as are done by judicial order—partioulurly of the pro- bee d of succession, or estate of a deceased person—that all the formalities of the law have been strictly complied with, or the sale will be annulled —Delogay vs. Smith, 3 Lou 'Rep., 421; Donaldson vs. Hull, 7 U 8, 113; Mayfield vs. Comeaux, 7 U. $, 185; 8 U_8.,246; 4 Lou: Rep , 204; 11 Mar, Rep., 610, 675; 2 Lou, Rep., 323. Under these decisions and the view which we have taken of this point of the case, the question of notice by the purchasers, and by the defendant from them, of the fliegal and fraudulent sale cannot be denied. The defendant knew from the titles which he received from the purchaser, Corregoles, and from that bought by him from the other alieneo of Corregoles, thut the sales had been made by Mr. Relf and Mr. Chew, in « representa- tive character, and it was his duty to inquire if they legally filled it? Not having done so, he has bought ia his own wrong, and the title by which ho claims the pro- perty must be suaulled. @ have confined our remarks strictly to the objec- tion that these salen were made by the dones, or univer- sal heir of the will, without adducing other causes, found in the proceediags of the executors, of which this record is but too fruitful, to show that the ebjection has no foundation in fact, statute of limitations, we will only say, that ‘a fores at the time the nuit is brought, deter- mines (he right of the party to sue for a claim, and that the time er that in force when this suit was ccm- menced had not expired. We ought, though, to say, to prevent {ature misapprehension, that it is not regular- ly in the pleadings of this cause. It is aleo said that tho decreas of the Cirouit Court is not final, im the sense contemplated by the law, to give to this court appeliate jurisdiction. Indoed, we do not see how a decree could be more so, Nothing is left open between the parties. It embraces the pleadings, as well as the proofs, in the cause, and directs the property held by the det ie eet forth in the pleadings, to bo enaweyed p Mra. Gaines. And'it a only, the uecree is sdoject co Une obligation that the lagitime of Mrs. Gaines in hor father’s estate is to be calculated out of the whole of it, so as to ascer- tain, and preserve distinet from this controversy, the ais; ble quantum to which the donee iv entitled under the will of 1811, that we shall dirsct it to be reversed Mrs Gaines, as the forced heir of her father, in enti- tled to such @ of hin estate as he could not do- prive her of, eicher by donations, intervivos, or mortis causa, The will of 1911 is not null, on account of being ® donation exceeding the quantum which father conld legally dispose of, but is only reducible to that quantum. To determine the reduction to which the donation in the will of 1811 is liable, the 29th artiele of Title 2. of donations inter viv nd mort: oh. 3, soe. 2, of the code of 1808, gives the rule. The disposable quan- tam, in this instanoe, would be one-fifth o/ the aggregate of the property of the decedent in Louisiana—the log!- time four-fiiths. Code of 1908, 212 tit 22. We shall direct tho decreo of the court below to be re- versed, and adjudge that a decree shali be made in the said court, in this suit, declaring that a lawtul marriage wascontracted in Philadelpeia, Pennsylvania, between Daniel Clark and Zuline Carriere, and that Myra Clark, now Myra Gai: is the lawful and only child of that marriage—tbat the said Myra is the forced heir of her father, and is entitled to four-fifths of his estate, after the excessive donation in the will of 111 is reduced to the disposable quantum which the father could legally give to others. ‘That the property described in the answer of the de- fendant, Mr. Patterson, is @ part of the estate of Daniel Clark at the type of his death. That it was illegally sold, by those Who kad no right or authority to make sale of ‘That the titles given by them to the pi chaser and by the purchaser to the defendant, Mr. Pat- terson, including those given by the buyer from the first purchaser to Mr Patterson, are null and veid, and thet the same ia liable, as a part of the estate of Daniel Clark, to the legitime of the forced heir, and that the defend- ant, Charies Patterson, shall surrender the #ame as shall be directed, among other things to be done in the premises, as wiil appear in the decree and mandate of this court to the Circuit Court ia Louisiana True copy. Test. WM THOS. CARROLL, Traian Orena,—Douisetti’s beaatiful opera of “ Lu- Borgia” attracted @ large, fashionable, and des- orjminating audience, last evening. The distinguished vocalist, Signora Teresa Truffi, with whose splendid acqairements, as a soprano of the first ord musi- Lucrezia, and much as lence in the character of Elvira, on Wednesday evening, our opinion was still more confirmed ta " chauting intonations last night, while singing the part of Lucrezis. Her reception was enthusiastic, and de- wervedly 0, for who that has heard her sweet and melting strains, poured forth with the most exquisite science and refined taste, can withhold the approbation married man when he married Zaline. His declaration to Madame Benquerel, associated with other facts, suff. ot prove it Befure leaving thia point, however, we will make @ siegle remark upon what was said in the argument, thet if the record of De Grange’s couviction had been pro- duced, it would not have been eompetent testimony, fom ils being res in er alivs acta The general rule certainly is, that a person cannot be eifroted, much less concluded, by any evidence, decree, or judgment, to which he was not actually, or in con- eration of law, privy. But the general rule has been daparted from, fo tar as that, wherever reputation would be admissable evidence, there a verdict between stran- gors in @ former action is evidence also. Such as in cues of manorial rights—public rights of way, rial custom, disputed boundary, and pedigr of Kingston’s oase, 11 Howell Stato trials, 261. domand—Lownde's Tenant, 7 Seott, U. R, ll. D. Bacon vs. Brydges,7 Scott, 333.’ Read vs. Jackson, per Laweence J. 1 365 ; Briteoe ve. Lomax8 Ad & 151; Biddulph ve. Ather, 2’ Wels. 23; Duke of Beauford, | Burr 146, ws to manori riseo & Lomax, 8 Ad. & 98, as to di -y; Laybourn vs Crisp, 4 t, the defendants uot having Deen parties to that euit, which was offered to prove three of the descents which was necessary to make ous the Dake’s pedigree. Mr, Justice Wright diffored from the mejority of the Judges on that ocea- sion, and ia Balier’s N PF. 4 Ed p 233, it is said that the opinion of thet learned Judge was generally avproved, tucugh the determination by ti stof the court was contrary. And the point has been since repeatediy ruled in conformity with the opinion of Mr. Justice Wright. But it may be enid that the ri what our mi thoto who may say 80, that possibilities are the of truth, indicating more frequently than otherwise the unprepareduess of @ mind to receive it, than ita unocer- taiaty. They have no standing in the law against a vielent presamption, which is plena prodofio, ot fall proor. Hoving disposed of all tho objections which were urged or which can be raised upon this record, against the most interesting and esseutial fact in the case of the complainants, we proceed to give our conclusions upouthe legal points made forthe reversal of tue decreo of the Ciromt Court. They wore, that the suit, at the instance of a forced heir, cannot be maintained against @ purchaser, until the dones’s property has been discussed: she sojuatly merits. During the first act, it appeared to us that some of the performers were laboring under th effects o} light cold--the voices of o quite husky; but they much improved the opera pr eeeded. The duott at the end of the second act. w rendered with such sweetness and harmony, by Siguora Truff and Benedetti, that the house rang with oheers, until they appesred before the curtain, and made their acknowledgement of the applauso bestowed on them. The drinking song, given by Lietti Corsi, was excellent, and was encored. In fact, all were perfect im their parts, and the entire opera passed off with the grontest oclt After the opera was eonoluded, i ‘and the stage, filled with the enti troupe, bearin, waited flags of America, Fraace and Italy, grand aod im; Iinmediately arose and 3 rgy end Affect, At the clove the company retired aunldet reiterated in consequence of thm French celebration and illumfnations which will take place om Monday, tho new opera of “ Nabuco,”” mualc by Verdi, will not come off till Tuesday evening, when, no dowdt, the house will be crowded. We trust the hint we have alroady given, im substituting one play for another, will be taken, as other- wise it must prove very injurious to the management. Bowery Tuxatare—The new grand historical draina ofthe“ Insurrection of Paris,’’ still attracts crowds to the Bowury. The popular excitement of the day adds tothe enthusiasm with which this splendid piece has been received. The scenery, coatumo, aud goneral ploty which wo have already frequently taken occasion to notice, presont new features uightily, caleuiated to com- mend it to public fay The stirring incidents connect- od with the late revolution in Paris, the news of which now rings through the lend in all quarters, are all pre- sented in the piece, with excellent eifec!, show. ing forth the prominent characteristics of the great drama lately enacted in Paris. The most hum ous character in tho piece Soupmaigre,a Parisian cook. the plot are well filed up i the dethroned monarch. Keene; Arago, by Mr minor characters ja the piece were all well sustained by the respective performers. The piece will be re- peated this evening, and those who would wich to greta correct idea of thi ts that have marked should not lose the op. succeeded, and passed off Louis Philippe, well personated by Mr portua: with much success Cuarwam Tararke—The ory is still, they oo this house—night after might it Is crowded, aud ail hands are delighted at the splendid spectacle of the “ Spirit of Tt was seid the decree was not final—that the ste- tute of Himitations bai recovery. And, last, that the deoreo direots the property fur whi the defendant is nued, to be conveyed and surrendered to Mrv. Gainer, inatead — Mop we 9 are ate estate, ou toroed legitime caloulated. the Waters.” The gentle Undinoand her knight, Sir | ; tares of Master Lapwig Prag the tiotnge of ‘Kiulebora, the fe fond, and che ‘array of the troop of beautiful amazons; the combats, scenery, haunts of tho water nymphs, and all the other curious, strango and supervatural scenes of diablorie, ke , which are so fi bined with the rr ally excell B Booth, Mra. G. Jones, P: make this epectacle ons 6 has heen produos| ia New have ® very loog Seemp?’ aud the m swain,”? rk tor «long ti ‘Vhe farce of the Tho first tx a mont Ieuy Denin, ua Joseph sated with muah Hieid war excellent Booth, as the Mid dy. waa @ capital autior, It in ® most interesting drama, and was well acted throughout. The scene where Ben ta to windward of the bailiffa was the most laughable Ehing we have seen for many a day. W lad to see the Chatham fo w very Plessant plaee of ante Ae acoomimodations for the audience are all finely finished, the house well ventilated, the officers and attendants civil and polite and overy thing i# so arranged as to render a visit to it both amusing and pleasant, Bowens Cracus.—This popular place of public amnuse- m/fnt, and the ovly ons of the sort in thiscity, will b opened on Monday night, under the management of Joba Tryon, with a full company of equostrians, « pack of Arabian Camels, and * the elephant.” It will be re: collvoted that ‘I'ryon was for seversl weska out of the amphitheatre ; but now that he is reimatated, and in the interim has been actively engaged in ths collection of fresh novaltias, we may expect to see crowded housew during the spring season, and the name delighted eudi snows that have always snconraged his entorprim. Cunisty’s Mixernece The Minstrels are singlog away nightly with as insch gusto es over—the audienen celighted, os usual. ecy thing goes ov amoothly, and the name of Christy will hencetorth be kuown as the Napoleon of Ethiopion minstreley Tha good folks of the city are scarcely contented with six nights perform- ances during the woek; s0, to accommodateall, a seventh ia addod, on Saturday afternoon. To-day, then, wt ¥, and at 8 P.M, there will be a concert at Mechanics Mien 8. Tn the nautical drama the Boatswain, and Mra Saute Brornens —The Brothers are getting on mort harmoniously; thetr singing, cracovienne dancing, banjo rolos, railroad overtures, &c., are moat amusing. ‘l'o-day thoy give two concerts—one at three and the other at eight, ?. M Baxvann's Panonama.—The rash to see this unrivalled panromio exhibition, is as great us ever. Criticiam ia at fault when this painting is the subject, a¢ all agree that nothing could be finer, ay a palating of the kimd, or more corroct as @ delineation of & most interesting part of the United Staten territory. Concene Room —The Congo minstrels are holiing forth at this room in @ great variety of negro songs, danoes, ke &o. Broapway Ovron.—4Lhe comic pictures and carrica- tures are stilithe rage at this piace. To-night the re- ceipts are for the benefit of the ex-model artists, Sympathy for the French Tue Revowvtion —The enthusiamm inereases every- where, 'Fhe committee of mon of all nations, who meet at the Shakspeare Hotelevery night, last evening adopted unanimously, a beautiful address, to be proposed at the grand demonstration in the Park on Monday next. This address had previdusly been presented to his honor the ‘ayor, and the Committee of the Common Councli, and et with unanimous approbation Local politics are avoided, and every citizen can cordially unite in The same steamer that iced us with the glorious news, will carry back America’s response. The Com- mon Council have acted liberally in their arrangements, aad last night sent a Committes to the Shakespeare Hotel desiring to protect and support ths grand republfoan demonstration. ‘There will bo on Monday 4 grand illu- mination of the City Hall, fireworks, transparencies, ke Thore will be one grand tribune, and two others From the first the Americ: and all whose language is Eng lish, will be addre Hera his honor, Mayor Brady, will preside. From the others the French and Germ: languages, and those of many nations, will bezapoke: We will, turough our corps Of reporters, do them all jastios.’ To-night, (Saturday.) the Irishmen meet at the Shakspeare Hotel to send delegates to France to juin in the grand demonstration iu Paris on the 20th of April, and to join there the delegates from Ireland. Vivé belle Republique A moeoting of French citizens was held last evening at Palmo’s Opera Heuse, for the purpose of making ar- rangesments preparatory to the great mass meeting of all nations in the Park, with the American paople, oo Monday next. Mr. Caylus was, by the unanimous voloe of the meeting, called to the chair ; and Mr. Guinet ap- pointed secrets The members of the St. John’s Hi Committee wore agzin appointed ® committee on the present occasion, and took their seats accordingly upon the platform. ‘The CaaimMan theo beietly Atuted the purpose and object of the meeting, and referred to the deores of the provisional government as u reason and motivo for ui nimity; and as all Feonshmen are now republicans, th: doores was @ splendid example for the forgetting of ali former party division A committes of thres was thea appointed to nominate six persona as delegates, to mako all necessary arrange ments with the delegates of the ether nations to meet at the Shakepsnre, for a cousentaneous organization on Monday next. The Secretary made knowa to the meet- ing the receipt of a letter from Monsiour Picard, of Boston, enclosing five dollars towards the sutseription for the wounded, and the wido' ad the orphwns of the heroes of February Also, « letter from the sons of M. Genet, formerly ibassador of the first French republic to Washington, (io the time of Washington) eontaining ardent expressions of joy and srmapathy for the new republic now happily estabiished in France | Moms. Genet, the republican ambassador [rom France, never returned to Europe, bat settled in tho United States, where he died some years ago. Hia republican ual and the appeal he made to the people, croated great ling at the time, and he was received and treated ith much coolness by the predominant party at Wash- ington. Jefferson favored him ant his principles, but the country was divided oa tho question |—Rer. or Hemaro Arrangements wore t! fabseription for the w at Paris, on the memorable day of February, 1943 committee was named. componed of Lhe moatirespoctable French merchants and residents of the city, to carry out the objects of the subscription and collect the sums to be contributed. A gentleman stated that ths object of the meeting was to make arrangements for the great meeting on Monday. He had seen the Mayor, who hadasked him if the French citizens had appointed their chairman and de cided upon the orators who were to speak. He (ihe apoaker) had replied that they had not, and he there fore thought ig ought now to he done. Mr. Caylus was then. upon this hint, unanimously elected chairman of the Pack meeting by loud acclamation, and his earnest wish to dsoline the honor and the toil was overraled by deatoning plaudits. A suggestion was here made in o letter addressed to the mesting by Mr. Prento, proposing a solemn fnneral service in bebali of the persons killed in the great reve- lution, fighting for the liberties of the French. The Saggestion was immediately adopted, and the necessary arrangements confided to the management of a commit- “ i for the purpose. The meeting having he objects of its session, adjourned ai demonstrations of much feeling, animation and cor! ty. Irauian Mentine.—The recent ne Sicily, called together a meeting of of the city, a: the Minerva Rooms, Brow. S veral spirited ead p the whole proceedin n mado for the collection of a ws wud orphans and wounded A a A litho: araph likeness of Ferdinand, King of Naples, was torn to pieces and trodden under foot amid the mont vociferous re Most enthusiastic rs. They have lived ioug enough uader tho rays of liberty to enjoy its blessings, and seemed to glory ia the approaching freedom of their country. The Germsoe in Baltimore held ® petriotic Thursday nigh’ h waa well attended farvent republicanism pervaded the vast as A series of resolutions were ead: to the effect—tst. To cong ach people on the auccess of their ¢fforta ‘muse of Hherty 2d. Commiserating the inhabitants of the Germ tes, and wishing them to throw off the yoke of despo- tiem. 34. That the Germans of Baltimore should be active im promoting the spread of republican principles, and should do what they could by subscribing money und istuing encouraging addresses to their friends im the ather land.” A comuaittes to carry out the object of the maeting was called for aud adopted. A proposition to form a permauont association for the promotion o Liberal principles was adopted and carried into «fect @ity Intelligence. ‘Tne Weatnen.— Yesterday was another pleasant dey though not like the two preceding ones. In the mor iug,@ heavy cloud ross from the eastern horizon,and tbe air was quite chill and damp About 7 o’el ok, howowe: ho sky became clear and the rays of the sun were quite werm. About neon, cloud rose from the west, and prond over the face of the aky, which continued until night, the ait beeoming cool and raw. Several beautifat days ‘have passed, and With them bia even in ite leat hours i th ® farewei seemed anxious to A. weather au $pc nd tram yall April en frag 1 changes from he beginning to the end, and with s greeter aumber than usual-—from the delightful weather of May, to the cold dampness of November. Aut Foous Day.—Again has April, iver tare, at day All Fools re busily engaged heir people itiva day be remembered—handed down to poster- ty a# one of the colebration days of one of the church D which in tho darker ages of civilization was one ef {he moat prominent characteristics of religion—e striet so to th» ceremonies and lebrations of the day ould be weit (or those who wish mot to be made» in playing t whioh will ever fool of (0 listen mot to the horrible tragedies whieh may de said to have occurred some remote section « the city, or © stor'liog Intelligence which will Beg t tea up for the purpose, Ware Mavoaacty ano Aums Howse oe Coxventios.—-The whig convention to nominate dates for the Mayoralty. amd the cf mt House oom missioner assembied lag nigh’ « (b) B ealway House oo Wikia ¥ corner of Grand street aud Broad way, wh Brady was, by acclamation, nominate! (or the mayer sity, and Jefferson Bortian, far the office of Alms House Commissioner Fine —A fire broke out about 7 o'clock on Towers evening, fn the house No. $$ Bim st: which origt from the bursting of a camphene lamp ft was a guishod by the 6. ward police, wi D trifling dasage,