moreover stated the whole case, of which an outline has been given, alleging, also, that the sales made by Relf and Chew were illegally made.

Relf and Chew demurred generally and also pleaded to the jurisdiction of the court. The proceedings in that branch of the case are set forth in 2 Howard, 619. Other defendants pursued other measures of defense, which it is not now necessary to mention.

555*] *On the 12th of December, 1837, Whitney's death was suggested, and the suit continued in the name of Myra alone.

On the 24th of May, 1839, Edmund P. Gaines and Myra, his wife, filed a supplemental bill, stating their intermarriage, and praying that the suit might be continued in their joint names as complainants.

On the 18th of April, 1840, the complainants filed an amended bill praying that Caroline de Grange, and her husband, John Barnes, might be made defendants to the original bill.

On the 21st of April, 1840, Patterson filed his answer, which was not under oath, but signed by his counsel, in conformity with the waiver of the complainants. The answer denied all right and title of the complainants in and to the following described piece or lot of ground situated on Philippa Street between Perdido and Poydras streets, having front, on Philippa street, one hundred and twenty-five feet French measure, by seventy feet in depth, the same being in a square of ground situated in Suburb St. Mary of this city, now the second municipality of New Orleans, and bounded by Philippa, Circus, Perdido, and Poydras streets.

It alleged that the property belonged to Clark in his lifetime and was legally sold by Relf and Chew, his executors, and denied all the allegations of the bill.

riage of Clark, and the consequent legitimacy of his daughter Myra.

Madame Despau and Madame Caillaret were sisters of Zuline, and examined under a commission issuing from the United States court. Their evidence was as follows: Interrogatories to be propounded, on behalf of Complainants, to John Sibley, Madame Caillaret, Madame Despau, and Mrs. Eliza Clark. 1st. Were you, or not, acquainted with the late Daniel Clark, of New Orleans?

2d. Was the said Daniel Clark ever married? If so, when and to whom, and was there any issue of said marriage? State all you may know or have heard of said Clark upon this subject.

3d. Were you acquainted with a man in New Orleans by the name of De Grange? If so, when and where have you known him? Was he, or not, married when he first came to New Orleans, and did he, or not, so continue until after he finally left it? State all you may know or have heard touching this subject.

4th. If you know anything further material to the complainants in the controversy, state it. Cross-Interrogatories.

1. Will you and each of you answering any interrogatories of the complainants state your age, employment, aand present residence, and if a married woman state your maiden name; and if married more than once state the names of your husbands, and by whom and when and where you resided during each year from 1810 to 1814?

2. If you answer the first interrogatory in chief affirmatively, state how that acquaintance originated. When and where did you first see Mr. Daniel Clark? Was your acquaintance with him intimate or not? Was it ever interrupted, and if so, for what reason? Did it continue uninterrupted until the death of Mr. Clark, and if so, how long a period did it embrace? Do you say that your intimacy with Mr. Clark was of such a nature as to enable

you to become acquainted with *events [*557

entire circle of his acquaintance? And if so, have you a distinct recollection of any such event or events? And state the circumstances which strengthen your memory on this point.

On the 25th of April, 1840, Patterson filed the following supplemental answer: "The supplemental answer of Charles Patterson, one of the defendants in the above entitled suit, most respectfully represents: "That the property described in his original answer is ninety feet in depth, instead of sev-in his life which were not disclosed to the enty-five, French measure, as therein stated, and further represents that your respondents purchased a part of said property from Gabriel Correjollas and the remainder from Etienne Meunier, and that the said Meunier purchased from the said Correjollas, and the said Correjollas purchased all the said property at an auction sale made in the year 1820 by the testamentary executors of the late Daniel Clark, all of which facts will more fully appear from the four several copies of the authentic deed of sale hereunto annexed as a part of this supplemental answer. And this respondent prays that this supplement be made a part of his original answer."

To this answer the deeds referred to were attached as exhibits.

556*] *As the claim of Mrs. Gaines in the present case was made, not as devisee under the will of 1813, but as forced heir under the Civil Code of 1808, ch. 3, sec. 1, art. 19, which prohibits a testator from willing away more than one fifth of his property if there is a legitimate child living at the time of his death, it is only necessary to insert in this statement such of the depositions as have a bearing upon the mar

3. Will you state where Mr. Clark resided when in New Orleans? Do you recollect the street and the house? Did he board or keep house? If he boarded, did he also lodge at the same house? And if so, who was the keeper of this house, and what was his or her general character? If he had a house, did he have a housekeeper? And if so, what was his or her general character? Did he reside in New Orleans during the summer months? And if not, where did he go? At whose house did he stop, or whom did he visit? And state what you know of the people whom he visited, and his own standing in society.

4. If, in answering the second interrogatory, you say that Mr. Daniel Clark was ever married, state when, where, and to whom. By what priest, clergyman, or magistrate, and who were the witnesses present? Were you among the witnesses? What other witnesses were present with you? Did you ever see the lady whom you say Mr. Clark married? And

if so, what was her personal appearance, her | dren—the one named Caroline and the other age, and name, and family? Where did she Where did she named Myra? And is, or not, that Myra one reside before the time you say she was married of the complainants in this case? Did you ever to Mr. Clark? How long did you know her hear him say that he intended to leave by will before that time? Or were you acquainted money or property enough to Myra to take the with her until then? Did not Mr. Clark in- | stain off her birth? If you heard him use such troduce her to you? State particularly every-expressions, or those of a similar character, thing you know in regard to the connection state what you suppose he meant by taking off of Mr. Clark with the lady whom you call the stain from the birth of his own legitimate his wife, and state if she was ever married be- daughter. fore or after the time you say she was married to Mr. Clark; if so, when, where, and to whom?

5. Did you ever know that there was any issue of said supposed marriage? If so, who told you? State your means of knowing anything about this circumstance. What was the name, age, sex, and the time of the birth of the child whose father you say was Mr. Clark? Do you know who nursed and reared this child? And if so, who was the nurse? State, if you please, if you saw the mother shortly after this child was born? And if so, where was she? Did she reside then at the house of Mr. Clark? And if not, why not, and where did she reside? Did Mr. Clark live with her at this time, and were they known generally to the neighbors as man and wife?

6. Was this supposed marriage of Mr. Clark's (if you say he ever was married) public or private? If public, did Mr. Clark introduce his wife to his friends and acquaintances in New Orleans? And if she was not introduced, state why she was not. Or was his marriage private? If so, why was it private? And what circumstances could, or did, probably 558*] *induce him to keep that marriage secret from his friends and the public?

7. Do you know Myra C. Whitney, one of the complainants in this controversy? If so, how long have you been acquainted with her? Did either of the complainants inform you, by letter or otherwise, that your testimony would be important to them in this suit? And if so, on what points did they wish you to be prepared?

10. Will you state who was the mother of the complainant, Myra? And did the mother nurse Myra? If not, why not? Who did nurse her? Did her mother die, and leave her an infant, or was she too sick and too feeble to nurse that child? Did the mother of Myra, the complainant, nurse and raise her, or not? If not, who did? Mention particularly any and all the circumstances on which you found your opinion.

11. If you know when the complainant Myra was born, state the precise date and place, and state if you know by whom and where she was raised, and whose name she bore, and why she bore that name.

*12. State, if you please, what are [*559 your feelings and affections towards the complainants; whether you are related to or connected with either of them; and if you are, how and in what degree or way, and whether you have any interest in the event of this suit.

13. Will each one of you, answering any of these direct or cross-interrogatories, state whether you have seen or examined, read or heard read, any one of them, or copies of them, at any time or place, before you were called upon by the commissioner to answer them? If ay, state when, where, and by whom they were thus so shown or read to or by you, and for what purpose. State, also, each one of you, whether you have had any conversation or correspondence, within the last three or four years, with the complainants, or with either of them, respecting their supposed claims against the estate of Daniel Clark, and if you answer affirmatively, state why, when, and where such 8. If, in answering the third interrogatory, conversation or correspondence occurred, and you say that you were acquainted with a man the nature and amount of them so far as your in New Orleans by the name of De Grange, memory will serve you; and who was present state, if you please, where and when you first at such conversations. If you have any letbecame acquainted with him, in what year. ters from the complainants, or from either of Were you intimate with him? And if so, did them, on the matters referred to in these direct this intimacy continue without interruption? and cross-interrogatories, annex them to your Was he born in the city of New Orleans? And answers if possible; and if not possible, state if not, where was he born, and how long did why. If you have preserved and cannot annex he remain in said city? What was his em- them, What was his em- them, give true extracts from them, and if ployment? Was he married in New Orleans, that be not possible, state your recollections. or where was he married? Were you present 14. What is your maternal language? If not at his marriage? And if so, state when and English, do you undertsand that language perby whom he was married. Have you ever fectly? And if you do not understand Enseen his wife? And if so, what was her per-glish, how have you contrived to answer the sonal appearance and age, and what was her foregoing chief and cross-interrogatories? Who name prior to her marriage with De Grange? has translated them to you? Did you ever see De Grange's wife and the lady whom you say Mr. Clark married, in company together? If so, when and where, and how often? State particularly everything you know touching said De Grange, his wife, and their connection or relation with Mr. Clark.

9. Did you ever, or not, hear Mr. Clark acknowledge that he had any natural children in New Orleans? And particularly, did you ever,

Answers of Madame Despau.

Answer to the first interrogatory.

I was well acquainted with the late Daniel Clark, of New Orleans.

Answer to the second interrogatory. Daniel Clark was married in Philadelphia,

or not, hear him acknowledge two female chil- | in 1803, by a Catholic priest. I was present at

against said De Grange. Mr. Clark still continued to defer promulgating his marriage with my sister, which very much fretted and irritated her feelings. Mr. Clark became a member of the United States Congress in 1806. While he was in Congress, my sister heard that he was courting Miss 1 of Baltimore. She was distressed, though she could not believe the report, knowing herself to be his wife; still, his strange conduct in deferring to promulgate his marriage with her had alarmed her; she and I sailed for Philadelphia, to get the proof of his marriage with my sister. We could find no record; and were told that the priest who married her and Mr. Clark was gone to Ireland. My sister then sent for Mr. Daniel W. Coxe, and mentioned to him the rumor. He answered that he knew it to be true that he (Clark) was engaged to her. My sister replied it could not be so. He then told her that she would not be able to establish her marriage with Mr. Clark, if he were disposed to contest it. He advised her to take counsel, and said he would send one; a Mr. Smythe came, and told my sister that she could not legally establish her marher a letter in English (a language then unknown to my sister) from Mr. Clark to Mr. Coxe, stating that he was about to marry Miss In consequence of this information, my sister Zuline came to the resolution of having no further communication or intercourse with Mr. Clark, and soon afterwards married Mr. Gardette, of Philadelphia.

Answer to the third interrogatory.

this marriage. One child was born of that marriage, to wit, Myra Clark, who married William Wallace Whitney, son of General T. Whitney, of the State of New York. I was present at her birth, and knew that Mr. Clark claimed and acknowledged her to be his child. She was born in 1806. I neither knew, nor had any reason to believe, any other child besides Myra was born of that marriage. The circumstances of her marriage with Daniel 560*] Clark *were these: Several years after her marriage with Mr. De Grange she heard that he had a living wife. Our family charged him with the crime of bigamy in marrying the said Zuline; he at first denied it, but afterwards admitted it, and fled from the country; these circumstances became public, and Mr. Clark made proposals of marriage to my sister, with the knowledge of all our family. It was considered essential, first, to obtain record proof of De Grange having a living wife at the time he married my sister, to obtain 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. On our arrival there, we found that the registry of marriage with Mr. Clark, and pretended to read to riages had been destroyed. Mr. Clark arrived after us. We heard that a Mr. Gardette, then living in Philadelphia, was one of the witnesses of Mr. De Grange's prior marriage. We proceeded to that city and found Mr. Gardette; he answered that he was present at said prior marriage of De Grange, and that he afterwards knew De Grange and his wife by this marriage -that this wife had sailed for France. Mr. Clark then said, "You have no reason longer to refuse being married to me. It will, however, be necessary to keep our marriage secret till I have obtained judicial proof of the nullity of your and De Grange's marriage." They, the said Clark, and the said Zuline, were then married. Soon afterwards, our sister, Madame Caillaret, wrote to us from New Orleans that De Grange's wife whom he had married prior to marrying the said Zuline, had arrived at New Orleans. We hastened our return to New Orleans. He was prosecuted for bigamyFather Antoine, of the Catholic church in New Orleans, taking part in the proceedings against De Grange. Mr. De Grange was condemned for bigamy in marrying the said Zuline, and was cast into prison, from which he secretly escaped by connivance, and was taken down the Mississippi River by Mr. Le Briten d' Orgenois, where he got to a vessel, escaped from the country, and, according to the best of my knowledge and belief, never afterwards returned to Louisiana; this happened in 1803, not a great while before the close of the Spanish government in LouisiMr. Clark told us that before he could promulgate his marriage with my sister it would be necessary that there should be brought by her an action against the name of De Grange. The anticipated change of government created delay, but at length, in 1806, Messrs. James Brown and Eligeas Fromentin, as the counsel of my sister, brought suit against the name of Jerome De Grange in the City Court, I think, of New Orleans. The grounds of said suit were, that said De Grange had imposed himself in marriage upon her at a time when he had living a lawful wife. 561*] *Judgment in said suit was rendered

ana.

I became acquainted with Mr. Jerome De Grange in 1793, when, as I understood, he first came to New Orleans. He was a nobleman by birth, and passed for a single or unmarried man; and courted and married Zuline, nee De Carriere, at the age of thirteen, the same who is the mother of Myra Clark Whitney. Zuline had two children by him, a boy and a girl; the boy died; the girl is still living; her name is Caroline; she is married to a physician by the name of Barnes. I was present at the birth of these children.

Answer to the fourth interrogatory.

I am not aware of knowing other important matter to the complainants, in this cause.

Answer to the first cross-interrogatory.

Carriere. My deceased husband was a planter. My name is Sophie Veuve Despau, nee De I was born in Louisiana. My *age is [*562 sixty-two. I now reside in Beloxi; from 1800 to 1814 I resided in Louisiana, in Philadelphia,

and in Cuba.

Answer to the second cross-interrogatory.

I first knew Daniel Clark in New Orleans; his being the husband of my sister, Zuline De Carriere, placed me on a footing of intimacy with him during the time of their intercourse; that intimacy was afterwards interrupted by their separation.

Answer to the third cross-interrogatory.

I had reason to know that Mr. Clark, at different times, lived in different houses in New

1.-The name is omitted by the Reporter.

Orleans. I have before said that he did not | Since the death of Mr. Daniel Clark, Mr. give publicity to his marriage with said Zuline. He kept a very handsome establishment for her in New Orleans; and was in the habit of visiting her.

Answer to the fourth cross-interrogatory.

I have already stated that Mr. Clark was married to my sister, Zuline De Carriere, that I was present at her marriage (a private one), in Philadelphia. Besides myself, Mr. Dorvier, of New Orleans, and an Irish gentleman, a friend of Mr. Clark's from New York, were present at his marriage. A Catholic priest performed the marriage ceremony. I have already before stated that Zuline was married to Mr. Jerome De Grange before her marriage with Mr. Clark, and that thereafter she was married to Mr. Gardette, of Philadelphia.

Answer to the fifth cross-interrogatory.

I have already stated that I knew Myra Clark to be the issue, and the only issue, of the marriage of Zuline de Carriere and Daniel Clark. A few days after the birth of Myra Clark, she was placed by her father under the care of Mrs. Davis, the wife of Colonel S. B. Davis, with whom she lived until her marriage with Mr. Whitney. I have heard that Colonel Davis concealed from the said Myra her true history, and that she bore his name after her father's death. Zuline and Mr. Clark occupied different houses in New Orleans, but he always visited her, as heretofore mentioned, at her own house; their marriage was known only to a few friends; Mr. Clark told me that he had informed Colonel S. B. Davis Mr. Daniel W.

Coxe, and Mr. Richard Relf, of his marriage with my sister Zuline.

Answer to the sixth cross-interrogatory.

Daniel W. Coxe and Mr. Hulings, of Philadelphia, gave her the name of Caroline Clark, and took her to Mr. Clark's mother, and introduced her as the daughter of her son. She of course believed their story, which induced her, in her will, to leave a portion of her property to Caroline. Caroline was born in 1801. I was present at her birth, as well as that of her brother.

Answer to the ninth cross-interrogatory.

ing any natural children, but have only heard I never heard Mr. Clark acknowledge his havhim acknowledge one child, and that a lawful one, to wit, said Myra.

Answer to the tenth cross-interrogatory.

I have already given a full account of the mother of Myra, and of Myra herself, and her being with Mrs. Davis. I have stated all that I know of these matters, as called for by this interrogatory.

Answer to the eleventh cross-interrogatory. tory has already been given. The information called for by this interroga

*Answer to the twelfth cross-interroga- [*564 tory.

I have already before stated myself to be the sister of Myra's mother. My feelings towards Myra are those of friendship and all becoming regard. I wish, however, that justice only be done towards her, but in or by the issue of the suit I have nothing to gain or lose. Answer to the thirteenth cross-interrogatory. I have seen or heard read the interrogatories called upon to answer them. Any conversations cross-interrogatories referred to, before that I have had about this affair I have already given an account of.

or

I always understood and believed, at least for Answer to the fourteenth cross-interrogatory. the first years of his marriage, that Mr. Clark was prevented from making it public on acMy natural language is French; but my count of her unfortunate marriage with Mr. nephew is well acquainted with the English De Grange. His pride was great, and his stand-language, and when in need of a translator, I 563*] ing was of the highest order in soapply to him. ciety, and that pride might have suggested his (Signed) opposition to the promulgation of his marriage. He, however, always manifested by his conversations, which I frequently heard, the greatest affection for his daughter Myra.

Answer to the seventh cross-interrogatory. I have already stated my knowledge of Myra Clark Whitney from her birth. As I never made any secret of my knowledge of her being the daughter of Daniel Clark, nothing was more likely than she and her late husband should hear of my acquaintance with her parentage, and many circumstances connected with it, as already related. And on this it was, I presume, that I have been called upon to give testimony in this affair. But neither of them, nor anybody else, ever dared to ask of me any

declarations in the least inconsistent with truth and justice.

Answer to the eighth cross-interrogatory.

I have already in my former answer stated, particularly the third and fourth, my knowledge of Jerome De Grange, and of his first and second marriages. Before the detection of his bigamy, said Zuline had a son who died, and a daughter called Caroline, which bore his name.

558

Sophie Ve. Despau,

nee De Carriere. Which answers, being reduced to writing, have been signed and sworn to in my presence, this twenty-eighth day of June, A. D. 1839. In testimony whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and seal, this day and year above written. Holmes P. Wentzell, J. P. H. C. [L. S.]

(Signed)

One word erased on third page, also one word on fourth page; two words interlined on fourth page; twenty-five words erased on fifth page; one word interlined on sixth page, before signing.

(Signed)

H. P. Wentzell,
W. W. Whitney and Myra C. Whitney
J. P. H. C. [L. S.]

V.

Richard Relf, Beverly Chew et al.

In pursuance of the annexed commission, issued from the United States Circuit Court of the Eastern District of Louisiana, I, the undersigned, justice of the peace in Hancock County, State of Mississippi, have caused to come before me Madame Rose Vve. Caillaret, nee De Carriere, who being duly sworn to declare the