Mother of the famous Myra Davis Clark Whitney Gaines
Court Decision of Myra Gaines 1872
Supreme Court
Louisiana James Wilkinson
1840 Louisiana > Orleans > New Orleans Ward 1
James Gardette
00001 males
00001101 females
Gardette made the false teeth for President George Washington
1850 New Orleans Municipality 1 Ward 1, Orleans, Louisiana hh 669
Jas Gardette 40 surgeon dentist Pa?
Zulime Gardette 68 La
Rhoda Gaines 17 Pa (she was really
Rhoda Whitney, daughter of Myra Clark Whitney Gaines
Daniel William Coxe was a Philadelphia merchant who turned to speculation in Spanish Grant lands. In 1793 he formed a mercantile partnership with Daniel Clark of New Orleans, La., and in 1801 they joined forces with
Beverly Chew and Richard Relf, also New Orleans merchants. In 1803 Clark began extensive purchases of land in Louisiana, West Florida, and elsewhere on behalf of himself and Coxe. By 1811, with all partners heavily in debt, they liquidated their connections, but because of Clark's death, the final settlement of accounts was not made until 1819. Coxe's primary occupation would be the confirmation of his claims to the southern property, particularly the large Louisiana tract on the Ouachita River, the "Maison Rouge Grant." To this end, he made repeated applications to the federal government and was involved in continuous litigation with squatters and heirs of former owners who challenged his title.These papers include a general correspondence file, 1793-1851, and additional letters, legal and financial documents and memoranda on specific aspects of his business affairs. The greater part of Coxe's correspondence was with his agents and lawyers about the Maison Rouge and West Florida lands. Other correspondents were: Daniel Clark on commercial and land business, with some mention of James Wilkinson's adventures; Chew and Relf on trade and settlement of Clark's estate; Richard S. Coxe, Daniel's nephew and Washington lawyer, as well as other prominent attorneys among whom were Daniel Webster, 1827-1829, and Horace Binney, 1820-1845; various members of Congress; A.P. Merrill, 1833-1841, Cashier of Agricultural Bank of Mississippi, Natchez, concerning Coxe's shares in that bank and banking affairs in general.There are small series of papers on particular subjects: Clark, Chew and Relf; Mason Rouge Grant; West Florida lands; Teche River, Attakapos, La., lands; Barthelemy Bosque heirs' claim on the 1807 cargo of the Comet; Coxe's memorials to Congress and annotated copies of Congressional bills, reports, and other documents; personal bills, 1793-1809; Bloomsbury, Burlington, County, N.J., lands, 1800-1812; Nalbro Frazier estate; Daniel Coxe estate papers, 1852- 1868; pamphlets, bills, newspapers, clippings
The Gaines Case. Deposition Of Mrs Gardette
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 1850
Paper: National Aegis (Worcester, MA)
Page: 1
The Gaines Case
Deposition of Mrs Gardette
We give below the deposition of Mrs Gardette, in the great Gaines case at New Orleans. It is filled with interesting details, and many assertions which will strike the reader with surprise. We copy from the New Orleans Delta:
ZULEME GARDETTE, being sworn, says: I am acquainted with some of the parties in the above suit; the wife of GENERAL GAINES and the wife of JOHN BARNES, are both my daughters. At the age of thirteen, I married a Mr. JEROME DEGRANGE, (a nobleman by birth) in New Orleans. He had been residing there several years previous to my becoming acquainted with him. He represented himself always as an unmarried man. By this marriage, I had two children, a boy and a girl-the boy died when an infant. The girl is still living, her name is Caroline. She is the wife of JOHN BARNES. She was born in Philadelphia, in the year 1801. It was intimated to me and my family, after the birth of my children, that Mr. DeGrange was a married man at the time of his having married me, and that his wife was still living. My family charged him with bigamy in marrying me. He at first denied it, but afterward admitted it, and immediately absented himself from the city. I returned to my family.
I became acquainted with DANIEL CLARK between the years 1802-03, shortly after the discovery that Mr DeGrange was a married man when he married me. Firmly under the impression that I was not the legal wife of DeGrange, MR. CLARK made proposals of marriage to me with the knowledge of all my family. It was considered essential, first, to obtain record proof of DeGrange having a wife living at the time he married me; to obtain which, from the records of the CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW YORK, where Mr DeGrange's prior marriage was celebrated, my sister (Madame DESPAU) and myself sailed for that city. On our arrival there we found that the Catholic church had been burnt and the records lost. MR. CLARK arrived shortly after us.
We heard that a MR GARDETTE, then living in PHILADELPHIA, was one of the witnesses to Mr. DeGrange's prior marriage. We proceeded to that city, and found MR. GARDETTE. He avers that he was present at said prior marriage; and was well acquainted with MR. DEGRANGE and his wife; that his wife had gone to France. MR CLARK then said: "You have no reason longer to refuse being married to me, but it is necessary to keep our marriage a secret till I have obtained judicial proof of the nullity of your and Mr. DeGrange's marriage. We were then married by a CATHOLIC PRIEST.
My sister, MADAME DESPAU, was present at my marriage with MR. CLARK; also, MR. DORSIER OF LOUISIANA, and a MR. CONNELLY, an Irish gentlemen, from New York, an intimate friend of MR CLARK, were present.
My marriage with MR. CLARK took place in the year 1803, in the city of PHILADELPHIA. A short time after my marriage with MR. CLARK, my sister, MADAME CAILLAVET, wrote to me from NEW ORLEANS, that Mr. DeGrange's wife, whom he had married previous to his marriage with me, had arrived in New Orleans, and that Mr. DeGrange had also returned to that city. We hastened our return to New Orleans. Mr DeGrange was prosecuted for bigamy. FATHER ANTOINE, who had married us, took an active part in the proceedings against the said DeGrange. Mr. DeGrange was condemned for bigamy in marrying me, and was cast into prison, from which he secretly escaped by connivance and was taken down the MISSISSIPPI by LE BRETON D'OREGNOIS, where he got into a vessel, and escaped from the country. This happened in 1803, only a short time before the close of the Spanish government in Louisiana.
MR CLARK told me that before he could promulgate his marriage with me, that it would be necessary that there should be brought by me an action against the name of DeGrange. The anticipated change of Government created delay, but at length MESSRS JAMES BROWN and E. FROMENIER?, as my counsel, brought suit against the name of DeGrange, in the CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS. The grounds of said suit against DeGrange were, that he imposed himself in marriage at a time when he had a living lawful wife. Judgment in said suit was rendered against said LeGrange.
Mr CLARK still continued to defer promulgating his marriage with me, which very much fretted and irritated my feelings. MR CLARK became a MEMBER OF CONGRESS in 1806. While he was there I heard that he was COURTING
MISS CATON (was Marianne Caton who married Richard, Marquis of Wellesley) OF BALTIMORE. I was greatly distressed, though I could not believe the report, knowing myself to be his wife. Still, his strange conduct in deferring to promulgate his marriage to me, alarmed me. Immediately on his arrival from Washington City he came to see me, but instead of meeting me with that feeling of affection he had ever evinced toward me, his manner was entirely changed. He reproached me in the strongest language that he was capable of--that my conduct in his absence had been of such a nature as would ever present his promulgating his marriage with me. My astonishment can well be imagined at such fiendish conduct, feeling, as I did, how undeserving I was of such reproaches. During his absence I had altogether abstained from going into society. It was impossible to have been more prudent then I was in all my conduct, and feeling this, I became excessively indignant toward him, told him he had never heard a syllable of harm against my reputation, that I believed it was a mere excuse on his part for the purpose of not proamulgating his marriage. I then observed that as much as I had loved him, so in proportion did I now I depise him; that we must now part forever. I never discovered, unfortunately, till it was too late, that those whom I had regarded, as my friends, had, with a fiendish malice, written to MR CLARK that my conduct had been very improper during his absence. Their object was to produce a breach between us. Their plans but too well succeeded. Had I been aware at the time of his diabolical plan, it would have saved me years of anguish.
But to return. After this unfortunate misunderstanding between MR CLARK and myself, I sailed for PHILADELPHIA, accompanied by my sister, MADAME DEPAU, to get the proof of my marriage to MR CLARK, but could find NO RECORD, and was told the priest who married us had gone to Ireland. I then sent for
DANIEL W COXE, A PARTNER OF MR. CLARK, and mentioned to him the rumor. He answered that he knew it to be true that he (CLARK) was ENGAGED TO BE MARRIED TO MISS CATON. I replied that it could not be so, that I was the lawful wife of MR CLARK. He replied that MR CLARK had told him that he had been privately married to me, but I would not be able to establish it if MR CLARK was disposed to contest it. He advised me, however, to take counsel and told me that I could not legally establish my marriage with MR CLARK. I suffered every species of agony that the human mind is capable of. That there could be no doubt that I had been deceived altogether by MR CLARK--i felt that I did despise him.
MR. COXE, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. GARDETTE (the witness of DeGrange's former marriage) came frequently to see me. MR COXE made him acquainted with all the above circumstances. He sympathized much for me, and stated to MR COXE that he would address me if he thought I would permit it. Mr Coxe urged me to receive his visits and spoke highly of him. Such was my situation that I was induced to marry him.
Two months after my marriage with MR GARDETTE, which was in 1808, MR CLARK arrived in PHILADELPHIA, for the purpose of asking my forgiveness for having a moment believed those calumnies that my enemies had circulated against me; that he was now satisifed I had been greatly injured, and he had come to Philadelphia for the purpose of promulgating our marriage. His grief can well be imagined when I told him it was too late, that I had been married to MR GARDETTE two months. He evidently suffered the most, intense agony, told me over and over again that he could not blame me for the step I had taken. He informed me that he had been deceived with regard to the falsehoods raised against me, that he had repeatedly written to me that he would come to Philadelphia as soon as his affairs would permit him. I informed him that I had never received any such letters. It was always been my impression that those letters were suppressed by DANIEL W. COXE, for they were, as MR CLARK told me, addressed to his care. MR CLARK said to me he knew the object of the conduct of those whom he formerly believed to be his friends, but their plans should be defeated, and the time would come when the Almighty would punish them.
I had one child, a daughter, by a marriage with MR. CLARK; HER NAME IS MYRA; she was born in 1805; her father, shortly after her birth, placed her in the care of COL. DAVIS and his lady, and she was to remain there until our marriage was promulgated. MR CLARK promised me in the interview above alluded to, that he would make a will, and in it declare MYRA to be his legitimate daughter, and would leave her the heiress of his immense estates. These remarks relieved me greatly.
MYRA CLARK GAINES, THE WIFE OF GENERAL EDMUND P. GAINES, is the only child of the said marriage between the LATE DANIEL CLARK and myself. I never heard that DANIEL CLARK ever had, or claimed as his own, any other child then MYRA CLARK GAINES. MR. CLARK, when he married me, promised that he would act always the part of a father toward my DAUGHTER CAROLINE. I requested him to permit her to bear his name. To that he answered that he had not the least objection. It is necessary, perhaps, that I should make the following statement:
MR. DANIEL W. COXE, after the death of MR CLARK, took my DAUGHTER CAROLINE TO THE MOTHER OF MR CLARK, who resided near PHILADELPHIA, and told her that the said CAROLINE WAS THE NATURAL CHILD OF MR CLARK. The old lady, believing this statement, left CAROLINE, in her will, a certain portion of her estate. I was greatly shocked when informed of this (which was not until after the death of MR CLARK) misrepresentation of MR COXE, for he well knew that CAROLINE could not be MR CLARK'S CHILD, as she was born previous to my separation from Mr DeGrange. That he had some sinister motive in this act, I have very little doubt. My health being very delicate previous to the birth of CAROLINE, I was advised by our physician to travel. With consent of Mr. DeGrange, I went to BALTIMORE and PHILADELPHIA, accompanied by one of my sisters. I was confined in Philadephia for two months sooner than I expected. Not having any milk to nourish my infant, an intimate friend of mine had the kindness to nurse the infant for me. I left the child in Philadelphia, intending to return for her the following spring. She was born in 1801.
In 1812 I received a letter from MR CLARK, stating that COLONEL AND MRS DAVIS had left NEW ORLEANS to reside in PHILADELPHIA, and had taken our daughter MYRA with them. That it was not his intention at first to have permitted them to have taken his child, but that MRS DAVIS, on his telling her he had come for MYRA, had wept and plead so much that he would permit MYRA to accompany them, and that she would not hesitate to give her up when he came to PHILADELPHIA, which he was to be in the course of six or eight months, and that he had not the courage to refuse one who had been so kind to his child. He further wrote that it was his intention to place MYRA in the care of the family of CHEVALIER DE LA CROIX, who were going to France in the course of a year, in which place he wished her to be educated; that no expense should be spared for her education; that she should have every advantage that money could procure.
After the death of MR CLARK (which occurred about that time he was to come for his child) I went frequently to COL DAVIS'S house to see my child and to take her home, which MY HUSBAND (MR GARDETTE) freely permitted my doing, but at each interview COL DAVIS would use those powerful arguments, that MRS DAVIS was devotely attached to MYRA, that MYRA believed them to be her parents, and that it would be cruel to undeceive her; that if I would permit the child to remain with them, and not speak of her being my daughter, that (COL DAVIS) would leave her all his fortune, which was estimated to be near $600,000. And independent of all this, although he knew MYRA was a legtimate child, still the marriage had never been promulgated, and consequently she would be considered as an illegitimate child.
These remarks certainly calculated to induce me to accede to the proposal, especially when he added that she would be introduced into society, when grown, as their child. He further told me that her father died insolvent, that there was not funds enough to pay the debts of the estate. I finally consented that they should keep her. In doing this, I sacrificed my feelings for her future happiness. In one of those interviews with COL DAVIS I showed him several letters which I had received from MR CLARK while I was at NEW ORLEANS and he at the North, in all of which he addressed me as "my dear wife." COLONEL DAVIS observed that MR CLARK had told him in the most solemn manner that he had been privately married to me, which he (DAVIS) firmly believed, as his knowledge of MR CLARK'S character was such that induced him to reply implicitly on his word. He further stated to me that he owed all his fortune to MR CLARK--that he had not a dollar when Mr Clark first knew him, and he would therefore take great pleasure in giving his fortune to the daughter of his benefactor. The above statement he made to MYRA after her marriage with MR WHITNEY, and also to MR WHITNEY. I perfectly remember telling COL DAVIS that MR CLARK must have made a will, such a will as he had promised me he would make, acknowledging the legitimcy of our child.
COL DAVIS'S answer was to this effect: "That when he was in New Orleans, in 1815, several persons had told him that MR CLARK had made a will shortly before his death, in favor of his daughter MYRA, but was supposed to have been SUPPRESSED BY RICHARD RELF, and therefore it would have been a difficult matter to have established it; that he had not the least doubt of MR CLARK'S having made such a will."
I believe that I have stated all that I can now remember that may be material to the controversy herein, of interest to the complainant or defendants. It may be necessary for me to state, however, that if my deposition has not been taken before, it is not my fault. I have constantly desired that it should be taken. I gave my daughter, Myra, unsolicited, a complete release immediately after my arrival here from France, of all or any interest I might possess in the estate of her father.
My sole object and hope in this world is, that she may at last obtain that justice which has been so long withheld from her. She has endured every persecution for the last seven years from those very individuals whom her father had protected and cherished.
Court Decision of Myra Gaines 1872
Supreme Court
Louisiana James Wilkinson
1840 Louisiana > Orleans > New Orleans Ward 1
James Gardette
00001 males
00001101 females
Gardette made the false teeth for President George Washington
1850 New Orleans Municipality 1 Ward 1, Orleans, Louisiana hh 669
Jas Gardette 40 surgeon dentist Pa?
Zulime Gardette 68 La
Rhoda Gaines 17 Pa (she was really
Rhoda Whitney, daughter of Myra Clark Whitney Gaines
Daniel William Coxe was a Philadelphia merchant who turned to speculation in Spanish Grant lands. In 1793 he formed a mercantile partnership with Daniel Clark of New Orleans, La., and in 1801 they joined forces with
Beverly Chew and Richard Relf, also New Orleans merchants. In 1803 Clark began extensive purchases of land in Louisiana, West Florida, and elsewhere on behalf of himself and Coxe. By 1811, with all partners heavily in debt, they liquidated their connections, but because of Clark's death, the final settlement of accounts was not made until 1819. Coxe's primary occupation would be the confirmation of his claims to the southern property, particularly the large Louisiana tract on the Ouachita River, the "Maison Rouge Grant." To this end, he made repeated applications to the federal government and was involved in continuous litigation with squatters and heirs of former owners who challenged his title.These papers include a general correspondence file, 1793-1851, and additional letters, legal and financial documents and memoranda on specific aspects of his business affairs. The greater part of Coxe's correspondence was with his agents and lawyers about the Maison Rouge and West Florida lands. Other correspondents were: Daniel Clark on commercial and land business, with some mention of James Wilkinson's adventures; Chew and Relf on trade and settlement of Clark's estate; Richard S. Coxe, Daniel's nephew and Washington lawyer, as well as other prominent attorneys among whom were Daniel Webster, 1827-1829, and Horace Binney, 1820-1845; various members of Congress; A.P. Merrill, 1833-1841, Cashier of Agricultural Bank of Mississippi, Natchez, concerning Coxe's shares in that bank and banking affairs in general.There are small series of papers on particular subjects: Clark, Chew and Relf; Mason Rouge Grant; West Florida lands; Teche River, Attakapos, La., lands; Barthelemy Bosque heirs' claim on the 1807 cargo of the Comet; Coxe's memorials to Congress and annotated copies of Congressional bills, reports, and other documents; personal bills, 1793-1809; Bloomsbury, Burlington, County, N.J., lands, 1800-1812; Nalbro Frazier estate; Daniel Coxe estate papers, 1852- 1868; pamphlets, bills, newspapers, clippings
The Gaines Case. Deposition Of Mrs Gardette
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 1850
Paper: National Aegis (Worcester, MA)
Page: 1
The Gaines Case
Deposition of Mrs Gardette
We give below the deposition of Mrs Gardette, in the great Gaines case at New Orleans. It is filled with interesting details, and many assertions which will strike the reader with surprise. We copy from the New Orleans Delta:
ZULEME GARDETTE, being sworn, says: I am acquainted with some of the parties in the above suit; the wife of GENERAL GAINES and the wife of JOHN BARNES, are both my daughters. At the age of thirteen, I married a Mr. JEROME DEGRANGE, (a nobleman by birth) in New Orleans. He had been residing there several years previous to my becoming acquainted with him. He represented himself always as an unmarried man. By this marriage, I had two children, a boy and a girl-the boy died when an infant. The girl is still living, her name is Caroline. She is the wife of JOHN BARNES. She was born in Philadelphia, in the year 1801. It was intimated to me and my family, after the birth of my children, that Mr. DeGrange was a married man at the time of his having married me, and that his wife was still living. My family charged him with bigamy in marrying me. He at first denied it, but afterward admitted it, and immediately absented himself from the city. I returned to my family.
I became acquainted with DANIEL CLARK between the years 1802-03, shortly after the discovery that Mr DeGrange was a married man when he married me. Firmly under the impression that I was not the legal wife of DeGrange, MR. CLARK made proposals of marriage to me with the knowledge of all my family. It was considered essential, first, to obtain record proof of DeGrange having a wife living at the time he married me; to obtain which, from the records of the CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW YORK, where Mr DeGrange's prior marriage was celebrated, my sister (Madame DESPAU) and myself sailed for that city. On our arrival there we found that the Catholic church had been burnt and the records lost. MR. CLARK arrived shortly after us.
We heard that a MR GARDETTE, then living in PHILADELPHIA, was one of the witnesses to Mr. DeGrange's prior marriage. We proceeded to that city, and found MR. GARDETTE. He avers that he was present at said prior marriage; and was well acquainted with MR. DEGRANGE and his wife; that his wife had gone to France. MR CLARK then said: "You have no reason longer to refuse being married to me, but it is necessary to keep our marriage a secret till I have obtained judicial proof of the nullity of your and Mr. DeGrange's marriage. We were then married by a CATHOLIC PRIEST.
My sister, MADAME DESPAU, was present at my marriage with MR. CLARK; also, MR. DORSIER OF LOUISIANA, and a MR. CONNELLY, an Irish gentlemen, from New York, an intimate friend of MR CLARK, were present.
My marriage with MR. CLARK took place in the year 1803, in the city of PHILADELPHIA. A short time after my marriage with MR. CLARK, my sister, MADAME CAILLAVET, wrote to me from NEW ORLEANS, that Mr. DeGrange's wife, whom he had married previous to his marriage with me, had arrived in New Orleans, and that Mr. DeGrange had also returned to that city. We hastened our return to New Orleans. Mr DeGrange was prosecuted for bigamy. FATHER ANTOINE, who had married us, took an active part in the proceedings against the said DeGrange. Mr. DeGrange was condemned for bigamy in marrying me, and was cast into prison, from which he secretly escaped by connivance and was taken down the MISSISSIPPI by LE BRETON D'OREGNOIS, where he got into a vessel, and escaped from the country. This happened in 1803, only a short time before the close of the Spanish government in Louisiana.
MR CLARK told me that before he could promulgate his marriage with me, that it would be necessary that there should be brought by me an action against the name of DeGrange. The anticipated change of Government created delay, but at length MESSRS JAMES BROWN and E. FROMENIER?, as my counsel, brought suit against the name of DeGrange, in the CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS. The grounds of said suit against DeGrange were, that he imposed himself in marriage at a time when he had a living lawful wife. Judgment in said suit was rendered against said LeGrange.
Mr CLARK still continued to defer promulgating his marriage with me, which very much fretted and irritated my feelings. MR CLARK became a MEMBER OF CONGRESS in 1806. While he was there I heard that he was COURTING
MISS CATON (was Marianne Caton who married Richard, Marquis of Wellesley) OF BALTIMORE. I was greatly distressed, though I could not believe the report, knowing myself to be his wife. Still, his strange conduct in deferring to promulgate his marriage to me, alarmed me. Immediately on his arrival from Washington City he came to see me, but instead of meeting me with that feeling of affection he had ever evinced toward me, his manner was entirely changed. He reproached me in the strongest language that he was capable of--that my conduct in his absence had been of such a nature as would ever present his promulgating his marriage with me. My astonishment can well be imagined at such fiendish conduct, feeling, as I did, how undeserving I was of such reproaches. During his absence I had altogether abstained from going into society. It was impossible to have been more prudent then I was in all my conduct, and feeling this, I became excessively indignant toward him, told him he had never heard a syllable of harm against my reputation, that I believed it was a mere excuse on his part for the purpose of not proamulgating his marriage. I then observed that as much as I had loved him, so in proportion did I now I depise him; that we must now part forever. I never discovered, unfortunately, till it was too late, that those whom I had regarded, as my friends, had, with a fiendish malice, written to MR CLARK that my conduct had been very improper during his absence. Their object was to produce a breach between us. Their plans but too well succeeded. Had I been aware at the time of his diabolical plan, it would have saved me years of anguish.
But to return. After this unfortunate misunderstanding between MR CLARK and myself, I sailed for PHILADELPHIA, accompanied by my sister, MADAME DEPAU, to get the proof of my marriage to MR CLARK, but could find NO RECORD, and was told the priest who married us had gone to Ireland. I then sent for
DANIEL W COXE, A PARTNER OF MR. CLARK, and mentioned to him the rumor. He answered that he knew it to be true that he (CLARK) was ENGAGED TO BE MARRIED TO MISS CATON. I replied that it could not be so, that I was the lawful wife of MR CLARK. He replied that MR CLARK had told him that he had been privately married to me, but I would not be able to establish it if MR CLARK was disposed to contest it. He advised me, however, to take counsel and told me that I could not legally establish my marriage with MR CLARK. I suffered every species of agony that the human mind is capable of. That there could be no doubt that I had been deceived altogether by MR CLARK--i felt that I did despise him.
MR. COXE, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. GARDETTE (the witness of DeGrange's former marriage) came frequently to see me. MR COXE made him acquainted with all the above circumstances. He sympathized much for me, and stated to MR COXE that he would address me if he thought I would permit it. Mr Coxe urged me to receive his visits and spoke highly of him. Such was my situation that I was induced to marry him.
Two months after my marriage with MR GARDETTE, which was in 1808, MR CLARK arrived in PHILADELPHIA, for the purpose of asking my forgiveness for having a moment believed those calumnies that my enemies had circulated against me; that he was now satisifed I had been greatly injured, and he had come to Philadelphia for the purpose of promulgating our marriage. His grief can well be imagined when I told him it was too late, that I had been married to MR GARDETTE two months. He evidently suffered the most, intense agony, told me over and over again that he could not blame me for the step I had taken. He informed me that he had been deceived with regard to the falsehoods raised against me, that he had repeatedly written to me that he would come to Philadelphia as soon as his affairs would permit him. I informed him that I had never received any such letters. It was always been my impression that those letters were suppressed by DANIEL W. COXE, for they were, as MR CLARK told me, addressed to his care. MR CLARK said to me he knew the object of the conduct of those whom he formerly believed to be his friends, but their plans should be defeated, and the time would come when the Almighty would punish them.
I had one child, a daughter, by a marriage with MR. CLARK; HER NAME IS MYRA; she was born in 1805; her father, shortly after her birth, placed her in the care of COL. DAVIS and his lady, and she was to remain there until our marriage was promulgated. MR CLARK promised me in the interview above alluded to, that he would make a will, and in it declare MYRA to be his legitimate daughter, and would leave her the heiress of his immense estates. These remarks relieved me greatly.
MYRA CLARK GAINES, THE WIFE OF GENERAL EDMUND P. GAINES, is the only child of the said marriage between the LATE DANIEL CLARK and myself. I never heard that DANIEL CLARK ever had, or claimed as his own, any other child then MYRA CLARK GAINES. MR. CLARK, when he married me, promised that he would act always the part of a father toward my DAUGHTER CAROLINE. I requested him to permit her to bear his name. To that he answered that he had not the least objection. It is necessary, perhaps, that I should make the following statement:
MR. DANIEL W. COXE, after the death of MR CLARK, took my DAUGHTER CAROLINE TO THE MOTHER OF MR CLARK, who resided near PHILADELPHIA, and told her that the said CAROLINE WAS THE NATURAL CHILD OF MR CLARK. The old lady, believing this statement, left CAROLINE, in her will, a certain portion of her estate. I was greatly shocked when informed of this (which was not until after the death of MR CLARK) misrepresentation of MR COXE, for he well knew that CAROLINE could not be MR CLARK'S CHILD, as she was born previous to my separation from Mr DeGrange. That he had some sinister motive in this act, I have very little doubt. My health being very delicate previous to the birth of CAROLINE, I was advised by our physician to travel. With consent of Mr. DeGrange, I went to BALTIMORE and PHILADELPHIA, accompanied by one of my sisters. I was confined in Philadephia for two months sooner than I expected. Not having any milk to nourish my infant, an intimate friend of mine had the kindness to nurse the infant for me. I left the child in Philadelphia, intending to return for her the following spring. She was born in 1801.
In 1812 I received a letter from MR CLARK, stating that COLONEL AND MRS DAVIS had left NEW ORLEANS to reside in PHILADELPHIA, and had taken our daughter MYRA with them. That it was not his intention at first to have permitted them to have taken his child, but that MRS DAVIS, on his telling her he had come for MYRA, had wept and plead so much that he would permit MYRA to accompany them, and that she would not hesitate to give her up when he came to PHILADELPHIA, which he was to be in the course of six or eight months, and that he had not the courage to refuse one who had been so kind to his child. He further wrote that it was his intention to place MYRA in the care of the family of CHEVALIER DE LA CROIX, who were going to France in the course of a year, in which place he wished her to be educated; that no expense should be spared for her education; that she should have every advantage that money could procure.
After the death of MR CLARK (which occurred about that time he was to come for his child) I went frequently to COL DAVIS'S house to see my child and to take her home, which MY HUSBAND (MR GARDETTE) freely permitted my doing, but at each interview COL DAVIS would use those powerful arguments, that MRS DAVIS was devotely attached to MYRA, that MYRA believed them to be her parents, and that it would be cruel to undeceive her; that if I would permit the child to remain with them, and not speak of her being my daughter, that (COL DAVIS) would leave her all his fortune, which was estimated to be near $600,000. And independent of all this, although he knew MYRA was a legtimate child, still the marriage had never been promulgated, and consequently she would be considered as an illegitimate child.
These remarks certainly calculated to induce me to accede to the proposal, especially when he added that she would be introduced into society, when grown, as their child. He further told me that her father died insolvent, that there was not funds enough to pay the debts of the estate. I finally consented that they should keep her. In doing this, I sacrificed my feelings for her future happiness. In one of those interviews with COL DAVIS I showed him several letters which I had received from MR CLARK while I was at NEW ORLEANS and he at the North, in all of which he addressed me as "my dear wife." COLONEL DAVIS observed that MR CLARK had told him in the most solemn manner that he had been privately married to me, which he (DAVIS) firmly believed, as his knowledge of MR CLARK'S character was such that induced him to reply implicitly on his word. He further stated to me that he owed all his fortune to MR CLARK--that he had not a dollar when Mr Clark first knew him, and he would therefore take great pleasure in giving his fortune to the daughter of his benefactor. The above statement he made to MYRA after her marriage with MR WHITNEY, and also to MR WHITNEY. I perfectly remember telling COL DAVIS that MR CLARK must have made a will, such a will as he had promised me he would make, acknowledging the legitimcy of our child.
COL DAVIS'S answer was to this effect: "That when he was in New Orleans, in 1815, several persons had told him that MR CLARK had made a will shortly before his death, in favor of his daughter MYRA, but was supposed to have been SUPPRESSED BY RICHARD RELF, and therefore it would have been a difficult matter to have established it; that he had not the least doubt of MR CLARK'S having made such a will."
I believe that I have stated all that I can now remember that may be material to the controversy herein, of interest to the complainant or defendants. It may be necessary for me to state, however, that if my deposition has not been taken before, it is not my fault. I have constantly desired that it should be taken. I gave my daughter, Myra, unsolicited, a complete release immediately after my arrival here from France, of all or any interest I might possess in the estate of her father.
My sole object and hope in this world is, that she may at last obtain that justice which has been so long withheld from her. She has endured every persecution for the last seven years from those very individuals whom her father had protected and cherished.
Mother of the famous Myra Davis Clark Whitney Gaines
Court Decision of Myra Gaines 1872
Supreme Court
Louisiana James Wilkinson
1840 Louisiana > Orleans > New Orleans Ward 1
James Gardette
00001 males
00001101 females
Gardette made the false teeth for President George Washington
1850 New Orleans Municipality 1 Ward 1, Orleans, Louisiana hh 669
Jas Gardette 40 surgeon dentist Pa?
Zulime Gardette 68 La
Rhoda Gaines 17 Pa (she was really
Rhoda Whitney, daughter of Myra Clark Whitney Gaines
Daniel William Coxe was a Philadelphia merchant who turned to speculation in Spanish Grant lands. In 1793 he formed a mercantile partnership with Daniel Clark of New Orleans, La., and in 1801 they joined forces with
Beverly Chew and Richard Relf, also New Orleans merchants. In 1803 Clark began extensive purchases of land in Louisiana, West Florida, and elsewhere on behalf of himself and Coxe. By 1811, with all partners heavily in debt, they liquidated their connections, but because of Clark's death, the final settlement of accounts was not made until 1819. Coxe's primary occupation would be the confirmation of his claims to the southern property, particularly the large Louisiana tract on the Ouachita River, the "Maison Rouge Grant." To this end, he made repeated applications to the federal government and was involved in continuous litigation with squatters and heirs of former owners who challenged his title.These papers include a general correspondence file, 1793-1851, and additional letters, legal and financial documents and memoranda on specific aspects of his business affairs. The greater part of Coxe's correspondence was with his agents and lawyers about the Maison Rouge and West Florida lands. Other correspondents were: Daniel Clark on commercial and land business, with some mention of James Wilkinson's adventures; Chew and Relf on trade and settlement of Clark's estate; Richard S. Coxe, Daniel's nephew and Washington lawyer, as well as other prominent attorneys among whom were Daniel Webster, 1827-1829, and Horace Binney, 1820-1845; various members of Congress; A.P. Merrill, 1833-1841, Cashier of Agricultural Bank of Mississippi, Natchez, concerning Coxe's shares in that bank and banking affairs in general.There are small series of papers on particular subjects: Clark, Chew and Relf; Mason Rouge Grant; West Florida lands; Teche River, Attakapos, La., lands; Barthelemy Bosque heirs' claim on the 1807 cargo of the Comet; Coxe's memorials to Congress and annotated copies of Congressional bills, reports, and other documents; personal bills, 1793-1809; Bloomsbury, Burlington, County, N.J., lands, 1800-1812; Nalbro Frazier estate; Daniel Coxe estate papers, 1852- 1868; pamphlets, bills, newspapers, clippings
The Gaines Case. Deposition Of Mrs Gardette
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 1850
Paper: National Aegis (Worcester, MA)
Page: 1
The Gaines Case
Deposition of Mrs Gardette
We give below the deposition of Mrs Gardette, in the great Gaines case at New Orleans. It is filled with interesting details, and many assertions which will strike the reader with surprise. We copy from the New Orleans Delta:
ZULEME GARDETTE, being sworn, says: I am acquainted with some of the parties in the above suit; the wife of GENERAL GAINES and the wife of JOHN BARNES, are both my daughters. At the age of thirteen, I married a Mr. JEROME DEGRANGE, (a nobleman by birth) in New Orleans. He had been residing there several years previous to my becoming acquainted with him. He represented himself always as an unmarried man. By this marriage, I had two children, a boy and a girl-the boy died when an infant. The girl is still living, her name is Caroline. She is the wife of JOHN BARNES. She was born in Philadelphia, in the year 1801. It was intimated to me and my family, after the birth of my children, that Mr. DeGrange was a married man at the time of his having married me, and that his wife was still living. My family charged him with bigamy in marrying me. He at first denied it, but afterward admitted it, and immediately absented himself from the city. I returned to my family.
I became acquainted with DANIEL CLARK between the years 1802-03, shortly after the discovery that Mr DeGrange was a married man when he married me. Firmly under the impression that I was not the legal wife of DeGrange, MR. CLARK made proposals of marriage to me with the knowledge of all my family. It was considered essential, first, to obtain record proof of DeGrange having a wife living at the time he married me; to obtain which, from the records of the CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW YORK, where Mr DeGrange's prior marriage was celebrated, my sister (Madame DESPAU) and myself sailed for that city. On our arrival there we found that the Catholic church had been burnt and the records lost. MR. CLARK arrived shortly after us.
We heard that a MR GARDETTE, then living in PHILADELPHIA, was one of the witnesses to Mr. DeGrange's prior marriage. We proceeded to that city, and found MR. GARDETTE. He avers that he was present at said prior marriage; and was well acquainted with MR. DEGRANGE and his wife; that his wife had gone to France. MR CLARK then said: "You have no reason longer to refuse being married to me, but it is necessary to keep our marriage a secret till I have obtained judicial proof of the nullity of your and Mr. DeGrange's marriage. We were then married by a CATHOLIC PRIEST.
My sister, MADAME DESPAU, was present at my marriage with MR. CLARK; also, MR. DORSIER OF LOUISIANA, and a MR. CONNELLY, an Irish gentlemen, from New York, an intimate friend of MR CLARK, were present.
My marriage with MR. CLARK took place in the year 1803, in the city of PHILADELPHIA. A short time after my marriage with MR. CLARK, my sister, MADAME CAILLAVET, wrote to me from NEW ORLEANS, that Mr. DeGrange's wife, whom he had married previous to his marriage with me, had arrived in New Orleans, and that Mr. DeGrange had also returned to that city. We hastened our return to New Orleans. Mr DeGrange was prosecuted for bigamy. FATHER ANTOINE, who had married us, took an active part in the proceedings against the said DeGrange. Mr. DeGrange was condemned for bigamy in marrying me, and was cast into prison, from which he secretly escaped by connivance and was taken down the MISSISSIPPI by LE BRETON D'OREGNOIS, where he got into a vessel, and escaped from the country. This happened in 1803, only a short time before the close of the Spanish government in Louisiana.
MR CLARK told me that before he could promulgate his marriage with me, that it would be necessary that there should be brought by me an action against the name of DeGrange. The anticipated change of Government created delay, but at length MESSRS JAMES BROWN and E. FROMENIER?, as my counsel, brought suit against the name of DeGrange, in the CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS. The grounds of said suit against DeGrange were, that he imposed himself in marriage at a time when he had a living lawful wife. Judgment in said suit was rendered against said LeGrange.
Mr CLARK still continued to defer promulgating his marriage with me, which very much fretted and irritated my feelings. MR CLARK became a MEMBER OF CONGRESS in 1806. While he was there I heard that he was COURTING
MISS CATON (was Marianne Caton who married Richard, Marquis of Wellesley) OF BALTIMORE. I was greatly distressed, though I could not believe the report, knowing myself to be his wife. Still, his strange conduct in deferring to promulgate his marriage to me, alarmed me. Immediately on his arrival from Washington City he came to see me, but instead of meeting me with that feeling of affection he had ever evinced toward me, his manner was entirely changed. He reproached me in the strongest language that he was capable of--that my conduct in his absence had been of such a nature as would ever present his promulgating his marriage with me. My astonishment can well be imagined at such fiendish conduct, feeling, as I did, how undeserving I was of such reproaches. During his absence I had altogether abstained from going into society. It was impossible to have been more prudent then I was in all my conduct, and feeling this, I became excessively indignant toward him, told him he had never heard a syllable of harm against my reputation, that I believed it was a mere excuse on his part for the purpose of not proamulgating his marriage. I then observed that as much as I had loved him, so in proportion did I now I depise him; that we must now part forever. I never discovered, unfortunately, till it was too late, that those whom I had regarded, as my friends, had, with a fiendish malice, written to MR CLARK that my conduct had been very improper during his absence. Their object was to produce a breach between us. Their plans but too well succeeded. Had I been aware at the time of his diabolical plan, it would have saved me years of anguish.
But to return. After this unfortunate misunderstanding between MR CLARK and myself, I sailed for PHILADELPHIA, accompanied by my sister, MADAME DEPAU, to get the proof of my marriage to MR CLARK, but could find NO RECORD, and was told the priest who married us had gone to Ireland. I then sent for
DANIEL W COXE, A PARTNER OF MR. CLARK, and mentioned to him the rumor. He answered that he knew it to be true that he (CLARK) was ENGAGED TO BE MARRIED TO MISS CATON. I replied that it could not be so, that I was the lawful wife of MR CLARK. He replied that MR CLARK had told him that he had been privately married to me, but I would not be able to establish it if MR CLARK was disposed to contest it. He advised me, however, to take counsel and told me that I could not legally establish my marriage with MR CLARK. I suffered every species of agony that the human mind is capable of. That there could be no doubt that I had been deceived altogether by MR CLARK--i felt that I did despise him.
MR. COXE, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. GARDETTE (the witness of DeGrange's former marriage) came frequently to see me. MR COXE made him acquainted with all the above circumstances. He sympathized much for me, and stated to MR COXE that he would address me if he thought I would permit it. Mr Coxe urged me to receive his visits and spoke highly of him. Such was my situation that I was induced to marry him.
Two months after my marriage with MR GARDETTE, which was in 1808, MR CLARK arrived in PHILADELPHIA, for the purpose of asking my forgiveness for having a moment believed those calumnies that my enemies had circulated against me; that he was now satisifed I had been greatly injured, and he had come to Philadelphia for the purpose of promulgating our marriage. His grief can well be imagined when I told him it was too late, that I had been married to MR GARDETTE two months. He evidently suffered the most, intense agony, told me over and over again that he could not blame me for the step I had taken. He informed me that he had been deceived with regard to the falsehoods raised against me, that he had repeatedly written to me that he would come to Philadelphia as soon as his affairs would permit him. I informed him that I had never received any such letters. It was always been my impression that those letters were suppressed by DANIEL W. COXE, for they were, as MR CLARK told me, addressed to his care. MR CLARK said to me he knew the object of the conduct of those whom he formerly believed to be his friends, but their plans should be defeated, and the time would come when the Almighty would punish them.
I had one child, a daughter, by a marriage with MR. CLARK; HER NAME IS MYRA; she was born in 1805; her father, shortly after her birth, placed her in the care of COL. DAVIS and his lady, and she was to remain there until our marriage was promulgated. MR CLARK promised me in the interview above alluded to, that he would make a will, and in it declare MYRA to be his legitimate daughter, and would leave her the heiress of his immense estates. These remarks relieved me greatly.
MYRA CLARK GAINES, THE WIFE OF GENERAL EDMUND P. GAINES, is the only child of the said marriage between the LATE DANIEL CLARK and myself. I never heard that DANIEL CLARK ever had, or claimed as his own, any other child then MYRA CLARK GAINES. MR. CLARK, when he married me, promised that he would act always the part of a father toward my DAUGHTER CAROLINE. I requested him to permit her to bear his name. To that he answered that he had not the least objection. It is necessary, perhaps, that I should make the following statement:
MR. DANIEL W. COXE, after the death of MR CLARK, took my DAUGHTER CAROLINE TO THE MOTHER OF MR CLARK, who resided near PHILADELPHIA, and told her that the said CAROLINE WAS THE NATURAL CHILD OF MR CLARK. The old lady, believing this statement, left CAROLINE, in her will, a certain portion of her estate. I was greatly shocked when informed of this (which was not until after the death of MR CLARK) misrepresentation of MR COXE, for he well knew that CAROLINE could not be MR CLARK'S CHILD, as she was born previous to my separation from Mr DeGrange. That he had some sinister motive in this act, I have very little doubt. My health being very delicate previous to the birth of CAROLINE, I was advised by our physician to travel. With consent of Mr. DeGrange, I went to BALTIMORE and PHILADELPHIA, accompanied by one of my sisters. I was confined in Philadephia for two months sooner than I expected. Not having any milk to nourish my infant, an intimate friend of mine had the kindness to nurse the infant for me. I left the child in Philadelphia, intending to return for her the following spring. She was born in 1801.
In 1812 I received a letter from MR CLARK, stating that COLONEL AND MRS DAVIS had left NEW ORLEANS to reside in PHILADELPHIA, and had taken our daughter MYRA with them. That it was not his intention at first to have permitted them to have taken his child, but that MRS DAVIS, on his telling her he had come for MYRA, had wept and plead so much that he would permit MYRA to accompany them, and that she would not hesitate to give her up when he came to PHILADELPHIA, which he was to be in the course of six or eight months, and that he had not the courage to refuse one who had been so kind to his child. He further wrote that it was his intention to place MYRA in the care of the family of CHEVALIER DE LA CROIX, who were going to France in the course of a year, in which place he wished her to be educated; that no expense should be spared for her education; that she should have every advantage that money could procure.
After the death of MR CLARK (which occurred about that time he was to come for his child) I went frequently to COL DAVIS'S house to see my child and to take her home, which MY HUSBAND (MR GARDETTE) freely permitted my doing, but at each interview COL DAVIS would use those powerful arguments, that MRS DAVIS was devotely attached to MYRA, that MYRA believed them to be her parents, and that it would be cruel to undeceive her; that if I would permit the child to remain with them, and not speak of her being my daughter, that (COL DAVIS) would leave her all his fortune, which was estimated to be near $600,000. And independent of all this, although he knew MYRA was a legtimate child, still the marriage had never been promulgated, and consequently she would be considered as an illegitimate child.
These remarks certainly calculated to induce me to accede to the proposal, especially when he added that she would be introduced into society, when grown, as their child. He further told me that her father died insolvent, that there was not funds enough to pay the debts of the estate. I finally consented that they should keep her. In doing this, I sacrificed my feelings for her future happiness. In one of those interviews with COL DAVIS I showed him several letters which I had received from MR CLARK while I was at NEW ORLEANS and he at the North, in all of which he addressed me as "my dear wife." COLONEL DAVIS observed that MR CLARK had told him in the most solemn manner that he had been privately married to me, which he (DAVIS) firmly believed, as his knowledge of MR CLARK'S character was such that induced him to reply implicitly on his word. He further stated to me that he owed all his fortune to MR CLARK--that he had not a dollar when Mr Clark first knew him, and he would therefore take great pleasure in giving his fortune to the daughter of his benefactor. The above statement he made to MYRA after her marriage with MR WHITNEY, and also to MR WHITNEY. I perfectly remember telling COL DAVIS that MR CLARK must have made a will, such a will as he had promised me he would make, acknowledging the legitimcy of our child.
COL DAVIS'S answer was to this effect: "That when he was in New Orleans, in 1815, several persons had told him that MR CLARK had made a will shortly before his death, in favor of his daughter MYRA, but was supposed to have been SUPPRESSED BY RICHARD RELF, and therefore it would have been a difficult matter to have established it; that he had not the least doubt of MR CLARK'S having made such a will."
I believe that I have stated all that I can now remember that may be material to the controversy herein, of interest to the complainant or defendants. It may be necessary for me to state, however, that if my deposition has not been taken before, it is not my fault. I have constantly desired that it should be taken. I gave my daughter, Myra, unsolicited, a complete release immediately after my arrival here from France, of all or any interest I might possess in the estate of her father.
My sole object and hope in this world is, that she may at last obtain that justice which has been so long withheld from her. She has endured every persecution for the last seven years from those very individuals whom her father had protected and cherished.
Court Decision of Myra Gaines 1872
Supreme Court
Louisiana James Wilkinson
1840 Louisiana > Orleans > New Orleans Ward 1
James Gardette
00001 males
00001101 females
Gardette made the false teeth for President George Washington
1850 New Orleans Municipality 1 Ward 1, Orleans, Louisiana hh 669
Jas Gardette 40 surgeon dentist Pa?
Zulime Gardette 68 La
Rhoda Gaines 17 Pa (she was really
Rhoda Whitney, daughter of Myra Clark Whitney Gaines
Daniel William Coxe was a Philadelphia merchant who turned to speculation in Spanish Grant lands. In 1793 he formed a mercantile partnership with Daniel Clark of New Orleans, La., and in 1801 they joined forces with
Beverly Chew and Richard Relf, also New Orleans merchants. In 1803 Clark began extensive purchases of land in Louisiana, West Florida, and elsewhere on behalf of himself and Coxe. By 1811, with all partners heavily in debt, they liquidated their connections, but because of Clark's death, the final settlement of accounts was not made until 1819. Coxe's primary occupation would be the confirmation of his claims to the southern property, particularly the large Louisiana tract on the Ouachita River, the "Maison Rouge Grant." To this end, he made repeated applications to the federal government and was involved in continuous litigation with squatters and heirs of former owners who challenged his title.These papers include a general correspondence file, 1793-1851, and additional letters, legal and financial documents and memoranda on specific aspects of his business affairs. The greater part of Coxe's correspondence was with his agents and lawyers about the Maison Rouge and West Florida lands. Other correspondents were: Daniel Clark on commercial and land business, with some mention of James Wilkinson's adventures; Chew and Relf on trade and settlement of Clark's estate; Richard S. Coxe, Daniel's nephew and Washington lawyer, as well as other prominent attorneys among whom were Daniel Webster, 1827-1829, and Horace Binney, 1820-1845; various members of Congress; A.P. Merrill, 1833-1841, Cashier of Agricultural Bank of Mississippi, Natchez, concerning Coxe's shares in that bank and banking affairs in general.There are small series of papers on particular subjects: Clark, Chew and Relf; Mason Rouge Grant; West Florida lands; Teche River, Attakapos, La., lands; Barthelemy Bosque heirs' claim on the 1807 cargo of the Comet; Coxe's memorials to Congress and annotated copies of Congressional bills, reports, and other documents; personal bills, 1793-1809; Bloomsbury, Burlington, County, N.J., lands, 1800-1812; Nalbro Frazier estate; Daniel Coxe estate papers, 1852- 1868; pamphlets, bills, newspapers, clippings
The Gaines Case. Deposition Of Mrs Gardette
Date: Wednesday, March 6, 1850
Paper: National Aegis (Worcester, MA)
Page: 1
The Gaines Case
Deposition of Mrs Gardette
We give below the deposition of Mrs Gardette, in the great Gaines case at New Orleans. It is filled with interesting details, and many assertions which will strike the reader with surprise. We copy from the New Orleans Delta:
ZULEME GARDETTE, being sworn, says: I am acquainted with some of the parties in the above suit; the wife of GENERAL GAINES and the wife of JOHN BARNES, are both my daughters. At the age of thirteen, I married a Mr. JEROME DEGRANGE, (a nobleman by birth) in New Orleans. He had been residing there several years previous to my becoming acquainted with him. He represented himself always as an unmarried man. By this marriage, I had two children, a boy and a girl-the boy died when an infant. The girl is still living, her name is Caroline. She is the wife of JOHN BARNES. She was born in Philadelphia, in the year 1801. It was intimated to me and my family, after the birth of my children, that Mr. DeGrange was a married man at the time of his having married me, and that his wife was still living. My family charged him with bigamy in marrying me. He at first denied it, but afterward admitted it, and immediately absented himself from the city. I returned to my family.
I became acquainted with DANIEL CLARK between the years 1802-03, shortly after the discovery that Mr DeGrange was a married man when he married me. Firmly under the impression that I was not the legal wife of DeGrange, MR. CLARK made proposals of marriage to me with the knowledge of all my family. It was considered essential, first, to obtain record proof of DeGrange having a wife living at the time he married me; to obtain which, from the records of the CATHOLIC CHURCH IN NEW YORK, where Mr DeGrange's prior marriage was celebrated, my sister (Madame DESPAU) and myself sailed for that city. On our arrival there we found that the Catholic church had been burnt and the records lost. MR. CLARK arrived shortly after us.
We heard that a MR GARDETTE, then living in PHILADELPHIA, was one of the witnesses to Mr. DeGrange's prior marriage. We proceeded to that city, and found MR. GARDETTE. He avers that he was present at said prior marriage; and was well acquainted with MR. DEGRANGE and his wife; that his wife had gone to France. MR CLARK then said: "You have no reason longer to refuse being married to me, but it is necessary to keep our marriage a secret till I have obtained judicial proof of the nullity of your and Mr. DeGrange's marriage. We were then married by a CATHOLIC PRIEST.
My sister, MADAME DESPAU, was present at my marriage with MR. CLARK; also, MR. DORSIER OF LOUISIANA, and a MR. CONNELLY, an Irish gentlemen, from New York, an intimate friend of MR CLARK, were present.
My marriage with MR. CLARK took place in the year 1803, in the city of PHILADELPHIA. A short time after my marriage with MR. CLARK, my sister, MADAME CAILLAVET, wrote to me from NEW ORLEANS, that Mr. DeGrange's wife, whom he had married previous to his marriage with me, had arrived in New Orleans, and that Mr. DeGrange had also returned to that city. We hastened our return to New Orleans. Mr DeGrange was prosecuted for bigamy. FATHER ANTOINE, who had married us, took an active part in the proceedings against the said DeGrange. Mr. DeGrange was condemned for bigamy in marrying me, and was cast into prison, from which he secretly escaped by connivance and was taken down the MISSISSIPPI by LE BRETON D'OREGNOIS, where he got into a vessel, and escaped from the country. This happened in 1803, only a short time before the close of the Spanish government in Louisiana.
MR CLARK told me that before he could promulgate his marriage with me, that it would be necessary that there should be brought by me an action against the name of DeGrange. The anticipated change of Government created delay, but at length MESSRS JAMES BROWN and E. FROMENIER?, as my counsel, brought suit against the name of DeGrange, in the CITY COURT OF NEW ORLEANS. The grounds of said suit against DeGrange were, that he imposed himself in marriage at a time when he had a living lawful wife. Judgment in said suit was rendered against said LeGrange.
Mr CLARK still continued to defer promulgating his marriage with me, which very much fretted and irritated my feelings. MR CLARK became a MEMBER OF CONGRESS in 1806. While he was there I heard that he was COURTING
MISS CATON (was Marianne Caton who married Richard, Marquis of Wellesley) OF BALTIMORE. I was greatly distressed, though I could not believe the report, knowing myself to be his wife. Still, his strange conduct in deferring to promulgate his marriage to me, alarmed me. Immediately on his arrival from Washington City he came to see me, but instead of meeting me with that feeling of affection he had ever evinced toward me, his manner was entirely changed. He reproached me in the strongest language that he was capable of--that my conduct in his absence had been of such a nature as would ever present his promulgating his marriage with me. My astonishment can well be imagined at such fiendish conduct, feeling, as I did, how undeserving I was of such reproaches. During his absence I had altogether abstained from going into society. It was impossible to have been more prudent then I was in all my conduct, and feeling this, I became excessively indignant toward him, told him he had never heard a syllable of harm against my reputation, that I believed it was a mere excuse on his part for the purpose of not proamulgating his marriage. I then observed that as much as I had loved him, so in proportion did I now I depise him; that we must now part forever. I never discovered, unfortunately, till it was too late, that those whom I had regarded, as my friends, had, with a fiendish malice, written to MR CLARK that my conduct had been very improper during his absence. Their object was to produce a breach between us. Their plans but too well succeeded. Had I been aware at the time of his diabolical plan, it would have saved me years of anguish.
But to return. After this unfortunate misunderstanding between MR CLARK and myself, I sailed for PHILADELPHIA, accompanied by my sister, MADAME DEPAU, to get the proof of my marriage to MR CLARK, but could find NO RECORD, and was told the priest who married us had gone to Ireland. I then sent for
DANIEL W COXE, A PARTNER OF MR. CLARK, and mentioned to him the rumor. He answered that he knew it to be true that he (CLARK) was ENGAGED TO BE MARRIED TO MISS CATON. I replied that it could not be so, that I was the lawful wife of MR CLARK. He replied that MR CLARK had told him that he had been privately married to me, but I would not be able to establish it if MR CLARK was disposed to contest it. He advised me, however, to take counsel and told me that I could not legally establish my marriage with MR CLARK. I suffered every species of agony that the human mind is capable of. That there could be no doubt that I had been deceived altogether by MR CLARK--i felt that I did despise him.
MR. COXE, ACCOMPANIED BY MR. GARDETTE (the witness of DeGrange's former marriage) came frequently to see me. MR COXE made him acquainted with all the above circumstances. He sympathized much for me, and stated to MR COXE that he would address me if he thought I would permit it. Mr Coxe urged me to receive his visits and spoke highly of him. Such was my situation that I was induced to marry him.
Two months after my marriage with MR GARDETTE, which was in 1808, MR CLARK arrived in PHILADELPHIA, for the purpose of asking my forgiveness for having a moment believed those calumnies that my enemies had circulated against me; that he was now satisifed I had been greatly injured, and he had come to Philadelphia for the purpose of promulgating our marriage. His grief can well be imagined when I told him it was too late, that I had been married to MR GARDETTE two months. He evidently suffered the most, intense agony, told me over and over again that he could not blame me for the step I had taken. He informed me that he had been deceived with regard to the falsehoods raised against me, that he had repeatedly written to me that he would come to Philadelphia as soon as his affairs would permit him. I informed him that I had never received any such letters. It was always been my impression that those letters were suppressed by DANIEL W. COXE, for they were, as MR CLARK told me, addressed to his care. MR CLARK said to me he knew the object of the conduct of those whom he formerly believed to be his friends, but their plans should be defeated, and the time would come when the Almighty would punish them.
I had one child, a daughter, by a marriage with MR. CLARK; HER NAME IS MYRA; she was born in 1805; her father, shortly after her birth, placed her in the care of COL. DAVIS and his lady, and she was to remain there until our marriage was promulgated. MR CLARK promised me in the interview above alluded to, that he would make a will, and in it declare MYRA to be his legitimate daughter, and would leave her the heiress of his immense estates. These remarks relieved me greatly.
MYRA CLARK GAINES, THE WIFE OF GENERAL EDMUND P. GAINES, is the only child of the said marriage between the LATE DANIEL CLARK and myself. I never heard that DANIEL CLARK ever had, or claimed as his own, any other child then MYRA CLARK GAINES. MR. CLARK, when he married me, promised that he would act always the part of a father toward my DAUGHTER CAROLINE. I requested him to permit her to bear his name. To that he answered that he had not the least objection. It is necessary, perhaps, that I should make the following statement:
MR. DANIEL W. COXE, after the death of MR CLARK, took my DAUGHTER CAROLINE TO THE MOTHER OF MR CLARK, who resided near PHILADELPHIA, and told her that the said CAROLINE WAS THE NATURAL CHILD OF MR CLARK. The old lady, believing this statement, left CAROLINE, in her will, a certain portion of her estate. I was greatly shocked when informed of this (which was not until after the death of MR CLARK) misrepresentation of MR COXE, for he well knew that CAROLINE could not be MR CLARK'S CHILD, as she was born previous to my separation from Mr DeGrange. That he had some sinister motive in this act, I have very little doubt. My health being very delicate previous to the birth of CAROLINE, I was advised by our physician to travel. With consent of Mr. DeGrange, I went to BALTIMORE and PHILADELPHIA, accompanied by one of my sisters. I was confined in Philadephia for two months sooner than I expected. Not having any milk to nourish my infant, an intimate friend of mine had the kindness to nurse the infant for me. I left the child in Philadelphia, intending to return for her the following spring. She was born in 1801.
In 1812 I received a letter from MR CLARK, stating that COLONEL AND MRS DAVIS had left NEW ORLEANS to reside in PHILADELPHIA, and had taken our daughter MYRA with them. That it was not his intention at first to have permitted them to have taken his child, but that MRS DAVIS, on his telling her he had come for MYRA, had wept and plead so much that he would permit MYRA to accompany them, and that she would not hesitate to give her up when he came to PHILADELPHIA, which he was to be in the course of six or eight months, and that he had not the courage to refuse one who had been so kind to his child. He further wrote that it was his intention to place MYRA in the care of the family of CHEVALIER DE LA CROIX, who were going to France in the course of a year, in which place he wished her to be educated; that no expense should be spared for her education; that she should have every advantage that money could procure.
After the death of MR CLARK (which occurred about that time he was to come for his child) I went frequently to COL DAVIS'S house to see my child and to take her home, which MY HUSBAND (MR GARDETTE) freely permitted my doing, but at each interview COL DAVIS would use those powerful arguments, that MRS DAVIS was devotely attached to MYRA, that MYRA believed them to be her parents, and that it would be cruel to undeceive her; that if I would permit the child to remain with them, and not speak of her being my daughter, that (COL DAVIS) would leave her all his fortune, which was estimated to be near $600,000. And independent of all this, although he knew MYRA was a legtimate child, still the marriage had never been promulgated, and consequently she would be considered as an illegitimate child.
These remarks certainly calculated to induce me to accede to the proposal, especially when he added that she would be introduced into society, when grown, as their child. He further told me that her father died insolvent, that there was not funds enough to pay the debts of the estate. I finally consented that they should keep her. In doing this, I sacrificed my feelings for her future happiness. In one of those interviews with COL DAVIS I showed him several letters which I had received from MR CLARK while I was at NEW ORLEANS and he at the North, in all of which he addressed me as "my dear wife." COLONEL DAVIS observed that MR CLARK had told him in the most solemn manner that he had been privately married to me, which he (DAVIS) firmly believed, as his knowledge of MR CLARK'S character was such that induced him to reply implicitly on his word. He further stated to me that he owed all his fortune to MR CLARK--that he had not a dollar when Mr Clark first knew him, and he would therefore take great pleasure in giving his fortune to the daughter of his benefactor. The above statement he made to MYRA after her marriage with MR WHITNEY, and also to MR WHITNEY. I perfectly remember telling COL DAVIS that MR CLARK must have made a will, such a will as he had promised me he would make, acknowledging the legitimcy of our child.
COL DAVIS'S answer was to this effect: "That when he was in New Orleans, in 1815, several persons had told him that MR CLARK had made a will shortly before his death, in favor of his daughter MYRA, but was supposed to have been SUPPRESSED BY RICHARD RELF, and therefore it would have been a difficult matter to have established it; that he had not the least doubt of MR CLARK'S having made such a will."
I believe that I have stated all that I can now remember that may be material to the controversy herein, of interest to the complainant or defendants. It may be necessary for me to state, however, that if my deposition has not been taken before, it is not my fault. I have constantly desired that it should be taken. I gave my daughter, Myra, unsolicited, a complete release immediately after my arrival here from France, of all or any interest I might possess in the estate of her father.
My sole object and hope in this world is, that she may at last obtain that justice which has been so long withheld from her. She has endured every persecution for the last seven years from those very individuals whom her father had protected and cherished.
Family Members
Advertisement
Advertisement
