My adversaries saw, clearly enough, the ground upon which I stood, and the able junior counsel, in opening the case, with great art alluded to it, and fully shadowed forth the position in the defense which was to be most strenuously attacked. “The plaintiff’s mortgage was undoubted; I had myself acknowledged it in the answer on file in the record; neither was the amount alleged by the defendant to have been received by her late husband from the succession of her mother to be disputed, the evidence was conclusive; but the marriage was illegal; that would hardly be questioned. Was the defendant in good faith at the time of its celebration? Was she in good faith when her late husband took possession of her mother’s succession? Was she in such good faith as would secure to her the rights of a legal marriage? These were the questions to be answered, and he believed that the evidence which he was about to bring home to the knowledge of the jury, would answer them most emphatically in the negative. He then spoke of Andrews’ long residence in New Orleans; of his many acquaintances there; of his well-known marriage with the daughter of a French Jew; of his desertion of his wife; of her return, with her aged father, to France; of the second marriage, hastily made up; of the plaintiff’s sudden appearance in that city, claiming a position due alone to honesty, while Andrews spoke of her to his associates as his concubine; of the hints which she had received of the imposition she was striving to practice upon others, or which had been in reality practiced upon herself; and of the deaf ear which she ever turned to such warnings; of her feigned incredulity; and of the mystery which hung over and covered, with impenetrable darkness, the history of her birth. He closed with an appeal to the judgment of the jury—cautioned them against the blinding influence of the passions—spoke of the dangerous eloquence of a woman in weeds—besought them to keep their reason unclouded, and not suffer sympathy to work a wrong—and asked for justice, sheer justice, the justice of the law, that right might be vindicated without respect of persons.”

The evidence went far to sustain the labored and wily exposition of the advocate. The first marriage; the desertion; Andrews’ long residence in New Orleans; his numerous acquaintances, putting inquiry within the easy reach of every one; his visit to the North; his early return accompanied by the defendant, who claimed the privileges and honors of a wife; his disclaimer of her right to such privileges and honors, repeatedly made to his associates; the many hints which the defendant had received from the well disposed and compassionate, as to her true position, early in her marriage; her confused replies, and faint and soon relinquished inquiries; her unwillingness to speak of her family, and studied silence whenever the subject was alluded to; the suspicion which rested upon her mother’s name, and the existence of the first wife, living even at that time, in retirement and sorrow in one of the small towns in the north of France, all was proved by testimony which seemed fair enough.

John Cornelius’ eyes glared gloatingly upon the gold already present to their sight, and he turned his hands one within the other, in the joy of the certainty of success.

——