XI.
JUDGMENT.
On the 11th of June the case of Sally Miller _versus_ Louis Belmonti wascalled up again and the report of the medical experts received. Couldanything be offered by Mr. Grymes and his associates to offset that? Yes;they had one last strong card, and now they played it.
It was, first, a certificate of baptism of a certain Mary's child John,offered in evidence to prove that this child was born at a time whenSalome Mueller, according to the testimony of her own kindred, was tooyoung by a year or two to become a mother; and secondly, the testimony ofa free woman of color, that to her knowledge that Mary was this Bridget orSally, and the child John this woman's eldest son Lafayette. And hereuponthe court announced that on the morrow it would hear the argument ofcounsel.
Salome's counsel besought the court for a temporary postponement on twoaccounts: first, that her age might be known beyond a peradventure byprocuring a copy of her own birth record from the official register of hernative Langensoultz, and also to procure in New Orleans the testimony ofone who was professionally present at the birth of her son, and who wouldswear that it occurred some years later than the date of the baptismalrecord just accepted as evidence.
"We are taken by surprise," exclaimed in effect Roselius and hiscoadjutors, "in the production of testimony by the opposing counsel openlyat variance with earlier evidence accepted from them and on record. Theact of the sale of this woman and her children from Sarah Canby to JohnFitz Miller in 1835, her son Lafayette being therein described as but fiveyears of age, fixes his birth by irresistible inference in 1830, in whichyear by the recorded testimony of her kindred Salome Mueller was fifteenyears old."
But the combined efforts of Roselius, Upton, and others were unavailing,and the newspapers of the following day reported: "This cause, continuedfrom yesterday, came on again to-day, when, after hearing arguments ofcounsel, the court took the same under consideration."
It must be a dull fancy that will not draw for itself the picture, when afortnight later the frequenters of the court-room hear the word ofjudgment. It is near the end of the hot far-southern June. The judgebegins to read aloud. His hearers wait languidly through the prolongedrecital of the history of the case. It is as we have given it here: no usehas been made here of any testimony discredited in the judge's reasons forhis decision. At length the evidence is summed up and every one attends tocatch the next word. The judge reads:
"The supposed identity is based upon two circumstances: first, a strikingresemblance of plaintiff to the child above mentioned and to the family ofthat child. Second, two certain marks or moles on the inside of the thighs[one on each thigh], which marks are similar in the child and in thewoman. This resemblance and these marks are proved by several witnesses.Are they sufficient to justify me in declaring the plaintiff to beidentical with the German child in question? I answer this question in thenegative."
What stir there was in the room when these words were heard the silentrecords lying before me do not tell, or whether all was silent while thejudge read on; but by and by his words were these:
"I must admit that the relatives of the said family of redemptioners seemto be very firmly convinced of the identity which the plaintiff claims....As, however, it is quite out of the question to take away a man's propertyupon grounds of this sort, I would suggest that the friends of theplaintiff, if honestly convinced of the justice of her pretensions, shouldmake some effort to settle _a l'aimable_ with the defendant, who hashonestly and fairly paid his money for her. They would doubtless find himwell disposed to part on reasonable terms with a slave from whom he canscarcely expect any service after what has passed. Judgment dismissing thesuit with costs."
The white slave was still a slave. We are left to imagine the quiet air ofdispatch with which as many of the counsel as were present gathered up anypapers they may have had, exchanged a few murmurous words with theirclients, and, hats in hand, hurried off and out to other business. Alsothe silent, slow dejection of Salome, Eva, Frank, and their neighbors andkin--if so be, that they were there--as they rose and left the hall wherea man's property was more sacred than a woman's freedom. But the attorneyhad given them ground of hope. Application would be made for a new trial;and if this was refused, as it probably would be, then appeal would bemade to the Supreme Court of the State.
So it happened. Only two days later the plaintiff, through one of hercounsel, the brother of Frank Upton, applied for a new trial. She statedthat important evidence not earlier obtainable had come to light; that shecould produce a witness to prove that John F. Miller had repeatedly saidshe was white; and that one of Miller's own late witnesses, his ownbrother-in-law, would make deposition of the fact, recollected only sincehe gave testimony, that the girl Bridget brought into Miller's householdin 1822 was much darker than the plaintiff and died a few yearsafterwards. And this witness did actually make such deposition. In the sixmonths through which the suit had dragged since Salome had made her firstpetition to the court and signed it with her mark she had learned towrite. The application for a new trial is signed--
signature]
The new trial was refused. Roselius took an appeal. The judge "allowed"it, fixing the amount of Salome's bond at $2000. Frank Schuber gave thebond and the case went up to the Supreme Court.
In that court no witnesses were likely to be examined. New testimony wasnot admissible; all testimony taken in the inferior courts "went up" bythe request of either party as part of the record, and to it no additioncould ordinarily be made. The case would be ready for argument almost atonce.
Strange True Stories of Louisiana Page 33
