In the Court of Probates in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans

Saturday March 23rd 1833

Present the Hon. Charles Morrison, Judge

Estate of Robert Lewis

On motion of G. Schmidt Esq. of counsel for Charles A. Jacobs, Testamentary Executor of Robert Lewis, I'm giving the Court to understand that Matthew Morgan, Samuel J. Peters, and Charles Millard, who, at the sale of the property of the Estate of the said Lewis, by order of this Court on the 16th of February last, became the purchasers of a lot of Ground situated in Gravier Street for the sum of $25,400 as appears by the process verbal of William Flower Auctioneer filed in this Court, have not yet complied with the terms of sale. It is ordered that said the Morgan, Peters and the Millard shew cause three days after a copy of this order shall have been served upon them, why a destringus should not issue to compel them to comply with the terms of said sale and give their notes as required.

Extract from the minutes

??Hossman

Dep. Reg. Wills

petitioner, & the said Lewis:__

Also, the falling articles consisting of movables

Viz. Twenty one horses

Twenty three mules with Harness

Thirty six Drays

Nine Carts

The contents of a blacksmith shop

A quantity and a red yarn

Two saddles and bridles

A quantity of wearing apparel

Three pair of pound balances

Four tobacco screws

A lot of Cooper's tools

Some counting house furniture.

The terms of sale of slaves are prayed to be made, for all sums of $500 or less 60 days credit-over $500 & to $1000 inclusive four months, -and above the thousand six months

And the La_s at ??? & ??? the other articles at court for sums under $1000 ?????????

credit for approved notes.- and further interest for all other things necessary.

___ ____ T. F. & T.H. McCaleb

attorney for executor

I have no objection to the

prayer of this foregoing petition

__________

attorney for absent heirs

To the Honourable the Court of Probates in and for the

Parish & City of New Orleans

The petition of Howell Lewis, Zachariah Lewis, residing in Albemarle county, in the state of Virginia, of William Lewis residing in Buckingham County & Daniel Lewis residing in Fluvana County in the said state.

Humbly Sheweth

That they are brothers and legitimate heirs of Robert Lewis, late of the City of New Orleans, now deceased.

That the said Robert Lewis, died in the said city on the 26th day of August in the present year one thousand eight hundred thirty-two, leaving his mother Sarah Lewis and five brothers, to wit, your petitioners and Nicholas Lewis, and two nephews, the children of Hardin P. Lewis another brother of his now deceased.

That on the 28th of the said month of August of the said year, a certain instrument purporting to be a mystic will made by the said Robert Lewis on the 24th of the month and year aforesaid was presented to this Honourable Court by Charles A. Jacobs of the said city, and opened and proved.

That by the said will a certain legacy appears to be made to Archibald R. Taylor, of the City aforesaid, of a house and lot and all improvements thereon situated in Poydras Street, together with all the deceased's household and kitchen furniture, and three slaves named Patsey, Millie, Delsie & their increase.

That by the said will, the deceased appears to give to his other four slaves - named Peter, Phill, Matt & Jim their freedom.

That by the said will, a legacy of six thousand dollars is left to one Hardin Tilman; & that by the sixth clause thereof the said deceased appears to give to his above named brother Nicholas Lewis, the use and benefit during his lifetime of all the balance of his estate both real and personal, and to the heirs of his body forever, should he have any; and by the same clause of the said will it is provided that, should the said Nicholas Lewis die without issue, then and in that case, the same is bequeathed to the Boys and Girls Asylum of New Orleans in equal proportions to each, provision, (it is said therein) being made in the first place for my mother of one-fourth of all
my Estate, which by law I understand she is entitled to.

That by the seventh clause of the said will Mr. Charles A. Jacobs of this City Aforesaid is appointed executor of the Same and detainer of all the Estate with power to take possession thereof and make the necessary inventory.

And the petitioners further shew that the legacy which, in the third clause of the said Will, appears to be made to Archibald R. Taylor is in reality nothing but a fidei commission, which is prohibited by the laws of the state and is therefore null and void. It having been understood between the deceased and the said Archibald R.Taylor that all the property embraced by the said clause should after having been received, delivered over by him to some other persons to where to wit, to one (name is blanked out) a free woman of color, who at the time of the making of said will was living these ????? ???? time in a state of concubine with the testator or to the children of said

That the provision contained in the sixth clause of the will aforesaid, in favor of the said Nicholas Lewis and heirs of his body should he have any, and in favor of the said Boys or Girls Asylum, should he died without issue, is also null and void, the same being to all intents and purposes a Substitution, by which the said Nicholas Lewis is charged to reserve for third persons the things comprised in the said clause, which is prohibited by the laws of this state.

And your petitioner further shew that the said Will is null in toto; for this: that the same purports to be the mystic will of the said Robert Lewis, written by another person, and that for the validity of such wills the law expressly requires 1st that the same or the paper serving as their envelope be closed and sealed _ 2d. That the testator shall present the same thus closed and sealed to the notary and to seven witnesses, or cause it to be closed and sealed in their presence. 3d. That he shall declare to the notary in the presence of the witnesses that the paper contains his testament written by himself, or by another by his direction, and signed by him the testator: Which your petitioners avers and are ready to prove was not done, and which does not, as it ought to, appear to have been done, from the act of superscription of the said Will.

Your petitioners therefore pray that the said Charles A. Jacobs who as executor of the said Will has been put in the possession and administration of the said Estate of the said Robert Lewis, the said Archibald R.Taylor, both of the city of New Orleans, Nicholas Lewis of Morgan County, State of Alabama, and now present in the said City, be cited to appear before this honourable court; and that it may

be adjudged and decreed that the said Will is null and void to all intents and purposes; that the said executor shall cease to administer the Estate of the deceased, that said deceased died intestate, that the executor aforesaid shall forwith render to your petitioners and their (cohires) a faithful accounting of the administration which he has hitherto have of the deceased’s Estate and deliver over to them all the properly movable or immoveable, slaves (part of page missing) which remain in his possession, and pay them are into court such (part of page missing) other? sums of money which he may have in his hands belonging to the Estate of the said Robert Lewis.

And should this Honorable Court be of opinion that (part of page missing) Will is not null in toto; your petitioners pray that the legacy (or page missing) appears therein made to the said Archibald R.Taylor is null and void; and that the provision contained in the sixth clause of said Will in favor of the said Nicholas Lewis and the heirs of his body, and in favor of the said Boys and Girls Asylum, should he die without issue, is also null and void; and to this effect your petitioners pray that the Female Orphan Society, and The Society for the Relief of Destitute Orphan Boys, both of the city of New Orleans, be made parties to this list and the also cited to appear an answer this petition. And that Hardin Tilman, residing in New Orleans, be also made a party to this suit.

And whereas the answer from oath to the subjoined interrogations by the said Archibald R.Taylor will be of great used to these petitioners and assist them in support of their _____ against______ parties ______ petitioner prays that he may be directed to answer them upon his oath, _____ ~~in the presence of their council on such day is this court may think proper _______~~ And your petitioners as in duty-bound will ever pray and that J. J. ___ attorney appointed to represent the absent heirs be also made a party to the suit.

Mazurean

John Slidell

Interrogations to be answered by Archibald R. Taylor.

1st Is or is not the legacy which appears to be made to you, in the will of Robert Lewis, as stated in the foregoing petition a mere fidei-commissum?

2nd Though the said legacy appears to be made in your favour, was it not understood between the testator and yourself that after having obtained the delivery of the property therein apparently bequeathed to you, you should delivere it over to certain third persons not named in the said will, in whose favour the said legacy is really made?

3rd If your answer to these interrogatories are in the affirmative, please to name the person or persons to whom you have bound yourself to deliver the said legacy after obtaining it?

Mazurean

Estate of Robert Lewis

Howell Lewis and others

Vs.

Charles A. Jacobs & al

In this case several claims are set up in the Plaintiffs petition, but on this trial the only two questions upon which the court decision is asked are the validity of the will and the validity of a clause in it containing as the Plaintiffs alledge a substitution.

The court after carefully examining the evidence and weighing the arguments of counsel:

Considering

1. That are laws consider the formalities to which Testament are subject as being of the Essence and Substance of Testament, and that the neglect of any of the formalities prescribed operates as a nullity of the instrument (Civil Code Art. 1588)

2. That the testament attached in this case being a Mystic or secret testament must in order to be valid be clothed with all the formalities prescribed by the 1577 art. of the Civil Code.

3. That the grounds upon which the plaintiffs rely to have the testament declared null in Toto are 1st that the provisions contained in the 3rd paragraph of the 1577 art. of the Civil Code and which relate to the closing and sealing of the will have not been complied with. 2. That the provisions obtained in the 4th paragraph of the same Article of the Civil Code, and which relate to the presentation of the will to the notary and to the superscription have also been violated.

4.That on the first ground, that noncompliance with the provision contained in the 3rd paragraph of art. 1577 of the Civil Code and worded as follows: "the paper containing those dispositions, or the papers serving as their envelope must be closed and sealed; the plaintiffs contending that the envelope of the Will attached has been closed but not sealed, in order to determine this question the state of that paper must be answered. That from the examination in appears that the said envelope was folded in the form of a letter or packet and secured by three wafers bearing no inpression upon them. That the closing of the packet results not from the paper being folded, but from its being secured or fastened by the wafers;

and that the securing fastening or closing with the wafers does not constitute the sealing for the following reasons:

Because admitting with the attorney for the def. the sale of construction laid down in the 14th art. of the Civil Code to wit: "the words all the law are generally to be understood in their most known and usual signification with attending so much to the niceties of grammar make as to the general and popular use of the words" the court must admit that rule as gratified, modified or explained in the 15th art. of the same code worded as follows, "terms of art. or technical terms and phrases are to be interpreted according to their received meaning and acceptation? with the learned in the art, trade, or profession to which they refer" and whether the common parlance is taken as the rule, or the definition of the word is sought for it in the books explaining the meaning of words in the Profession of Law, the words seal, sealed always imply an impression of some mark or device. Jacobs’ Law Dictionary: Verb Seal (Sigillum) is taken either for wax impressions with the device and attached to deeds and/or for the ?? testament? with which the wax is impressed. In law the former is the most usual sense.
Because under the 976th art. of the code Napoleon and, which likes the 1577 art. of our own code provides that the paper containing the will or the envelope shall be closed and sealed (____ & Seallé) the same question which arises in this case has also arisen in France, where it has been fully and thoroughly decided and commented by the most able jurists and decided by the highest tribunals of that country, and every writer every decision, (even those cited by the counsel for the defendant) agree on the real meaning of those words, and the principles invariably laid down that a mystic will fastened either with wax or wafers or any other substance is considered as close/clos to but not sealed/seallé) unless the wax, wafer or other substance bears an impression, and the obvious meaning given by all the authors is that which probably has induced our legislators to include the provisions in our code, to wit: the greater security which an impression are sealed give us to an description of Wills, which of all then known to our laws would certainly be the most insecure if it could be opened.

That therefore the Testament attacked by the plaintiffs or rather the envelope of it cannot be said to have been sealed.

5. That on this 2nd ground relied on by the plaintiffs, to wit: the noncompliance with the provisions contained in the fourth paragraph of art. 1577 of the Code, the testimony does establish a material fact to wit: that the will was presented by the notary to the deceased, and not by the deceased to the notary and several

witnesses; that the deceased did not actually declared that that paper contained his will, but merely answered in the affirmative to the question asking about a notary whether the paper contained his will: that by the superscription itself it would not appear that the notary received the will from the testator, or in other words that the testator presented the will to the notary, for the notary in his superscription does not say that he received the will from the testator but in the presence of the testator.

6. That it results that the legal formalities required by the 3rd and 4th paragraphs of the 1577 art. of the Code not having been complied with, in pursuance of the 1588th art. of the same Code the Will is null and void.

7. That the court considering the Will as null in toto it is useful to examine how far a particular clause in it which is attacked as containing a substitution might be legal, and besides that the corporations in favor of which the substitution is alledged to have been made, although duly cited are not in court and that therefore their rights cannot be adjudicated upon at present.

It is ordered adjudged and decreed that the will filed in this court and by virtue of which Charles A. Jacobs has administered the Estate of the late Robert Lewis be declared null and void, that the said the deceased to be considered as having died intestate; that Charles A. Jacobs cease to act as executor of said Will, and that he render forthwith to this court a faithfull account of his administration, and deliver over to the Register of Wills all the property movable and immovable, slaves etc. which remains in his possession, and pay unto court such sum or sums of money or obligations which he may have in his hands belonging to the Succession of the said Robert Lewis, the said property, monies, obligations etc. to remain in court subject to any future order which may legally be made in the case, and that the cost be borne by the Succession.

April 2nd 1833

` Charles Marzurian

Judge

Estate of Robert Lewis

On the rule to set aside the order

Homologating the account rendered

by Charles A. Jacobs.

The court after hearing the argument of counsel and examining all the circumstances of the case

Considering:

1. That this is not a motion for a new trial, but that the object of this rule is to set aside and ex parte order granted by this court under the erroneous impression that it was homologating the account of a testamentary executor rendered in the usual course of business at the expiration of his functions. When indeed the account rendered and on which the order of homologation was obtained formed only a feeble part of the execution of the judgment rendered by this court on the 3rd of April last.

2. That the particular circumstances under which this account was rendered required at least that personal notice of its being deposited in court should be given to the heirs, and that the notice in the papers cannot be considered as sufficient.

3. That by merely filing his account in court and not executing the other provisions of the Judgment of April 3rd 1833 Charles A. Jacobs could not create from self a right which would effectually enable him to evade the execution of said Judgment.

4. That this court having committed an oversight which it freely admits, when granting the order of homologation, forgetting at the time under what circumstances the account was in court, the ends of justice required that it should be remedied.

5. That at all events from the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the case out of Avart vs. His Creditors Mart. Reg. N.S. Vol 6 Page 652, it may well by analogy be inferred that as long as the judgment of homologation was signed, it was subject to be opposed and a motion made to set aside.

It is therefore ordered that the rule be maintained, the order of homologation of the account rendered by Charles A. Jacobs set aside, and that the heirs of Robert Lewis be allowed to file their oppositions to said account.

To the Hon. Charles Mazurean, Judge of the Court of Probates in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans.

The petition of Charles A. Jacobs, executor of the Estate of Robert Lewis deceased respectfully shows: that it is now ascertained that the set Estate is largely indebted, that in the sum of some ______ about sixty thousands dollars, that the demands against the same have been pressed for payment-with the consent of the attorney appointed to the absent heirs (None of said heirs having yet appeared,) your petitioner prays the order of your honor to sell the following property, Viz.,: thirty four slaves, named on the paper hereto annexed & marked as belonging to said estate and the other eleven slaves mentioned on said paper & belonging in joint account (one half each) to the said Estate, and to your petitioner who is willing, and hereby

gives his consent (for the purpose of effecting partition, & to enable said slaves to be sold to the best advantage to sell his undivided half at the same time on the same terms:

Also although rights and interests of said Robert Lewis in & to a certain property situated in the Suburb Island? owned by Alexander Milne – by the said Milne leased for the year from the 19th of November 1828 to one John Forsythe, as will appear by the act of lease passed before Carlisle Pollock, Notary Public of the City on the 8th September 1828 of which said lease was afterwards purchased at the sale of the said Forsythye (who had died?) by the said Lewis and your petitioner on joint account as will appear by act before G. R. Stringer, N. Public also of this City, dated April 27th, 1830 and a portion of which property was afterwards sublease by your……

Court Of Probates

Estate of Robert Lewis

Petition Of Executor For Sale Of Slaves And Movables.

______October 1832

________________ for the

_______of will of our. Lewis

auctioned after the _________

required by _________the following

terms and conditions, to def.

The slaves for all sums of $500 or less 60 days credit or 500 and 2 1000 inclusive four months and above 1000 six months. The lease of

The land in the Suburb Delord at six, twelve, and eighteen months credit and the normally for signs under $600 cash-and over that sum ______ days credit, the whole by approval and signed notes with _____

mortgage as by the slaves

Charles Maurzian

The following the Negroes belonging to the Estate of Robert Lewis, deceased.

1. Alfred, a Negro man aged about 27 years - drayman North Carolina

2. Lloyd, a Negro man aged about 22 years – “

3. Jeffrey, a Negro man aged about 23 years - “

4. Washington, a Negro man aged about 25 years - “

5. Randall, a Negro man aged about 28 years - “

6. Lewis, a Negro man aged about 20 years - “

7. George, a Negro man aged about 24 years - “

8. Milford, a Mulatto man aged about 21 years - “

9. Pompey, a Negro man aged about 19 - “

10. Billy, a Negro man aged about 32 years - “

11. Wesley, a Negro man aged about 28 years Blacksmith and drayman

12 John Watson, although Lotto man aged about 26 years – drayman and cartman

13. John Wilson, a Negro man aged about 26 years – “ & blacksmith

14. Sam Mack, a Negro man aged about 25 years - “

15. Hercules, a Negro man aged about 31 years - “

16. Davy, a Negro man aged about 26 years - “

17. Robert, a lotto man aged about 22 years - “

18. Sam Charles, a Negro man aged about 23 years - “

19. Little gem, a Negro boy he aged about 16 years - “

20. Jesse Gray, a Negro man aged about 39 years - “

21. Charles, and Negro managed about 21 years - “

22. Perry, a Negro man aged about 26 years- “

23. Washington Gates, a Negro man aged about 26 years - “

24. Lizzie, a Negro woman aged about 34 years – Washer and house servant

25. Rhody, a Negro woman aged about 24 years - “ “

26. Nancy, a Negro woman aged about 22 years - cook and washer

and Mary her infant child aged about 1 year

27. Herman, a Negro man aged about …….. Dray and Cartman

28. Jim Cannon, a Negro man ……… “

29. Abraham, a Negro man ………… “

30. Rowland, a Negro man …………… “

31. Nathan, a Negro man ………….. Accustomed to the house and cook

32. In Archer, a Negro man …………. Dray and cart man

33. John Harper, a Negro man ………. “ – Runaway

The following 11 slaves along to the Estate of Robert Lewis and Charles A. Jacobs on jointage? - pay one-half each. -

1. Reuben, a yellow man aged about 22 years, drayman and working hand

2. Gabriel, a Negro man aged about 25 years - “ “

3. Linus?, a Negro man aged about 25 years - labourer

4. George, a Negro man aids about 25 years - “

5. Marie, a Negro woman aged about 23 years - unhealthy.

6. Fleming, a Negro boy aged about twelve years -drayman

7. Anthony, a Negro boy he aged about 13 years - brick carrier

8. Jackson, a Negro boy he aged about 13 years - “

9. Preston, a Negro boy he aged about 13 years - “

10. Page or Giles, a Negro boy aged about nine years - not healthy.

And Tom, a Negro boy aged about 14 years - brick carrier

____________

Terms of Sale

$500 or less - 60 days cash

over $500 to $1000 -4 months

above $1000 - 4 to 6 months

United States of America

STATE OF LOUISIANA

By This Public Instrument of Protest

Be It Known, that on this twentieth day of October in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty two, at the request of the Office of Discount and Deposit of the BANK OF THE UNITED STATES in New Orleans, holder of the original note --wear out a true copy is on the reverse here are written, I, Greenbury Ridgely Stringer, Notary Public, dwelling of the city of New Orleans, duly commissioned,

Presented said note to a person in at the domicile or of Charles A. Jacobs testamentary executor of the late Robert Lewis deceased drawer of said note and demanded payment thereof. I was answered that the same could not be paid.

Whereupon I, the said notary, at the request aforesaid, did protest, and by these presents to publicly and solemnly protest, as well against the drawer or maker of said note as against all others whom it doth or may concern, for all exchange, re-exchange, damages, costs, charges and interest, suffered or to be suffered for want of payment of the said note.

Thus Done and Protested, in the presence of J. P. Benjamin

and David L. McCay witnesses

In Testimony Whereof, I grant these presents under my signature, and the impress above seal of office, at the city of New Orleans, on the day and year first before written.

G. R. Stringer

Not. Pub.

To the Honorable the Judge of the Court of Probate in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans.

The petition of Charles A. Jacobs, Executor of the Estate of Robert Lewis deceased shows: That said Estate being largely indebted it becomes necessary to sell property to meet the debts due, that among the property belonging to the said Estate and which ought to be sold is the following

Viz:

18 shares of City Bank stock

24 shares of Merchants Insurance Stock

9 ????? & a quantity of loose tobacco in the public warehouse in the upper

Fauxburg?

Wherefore your petitioner prays that your honor would order the said

property to be sold and for cash & for general relief. etc. etc.

T.F. & T.H. McCaleb

Attorneys for Executor

I have no objections to the

Prayer of the foregoing petitioner.

Thomas W. Farrar

Attorney for Absent Heirs

To the Honorable Charles Maurian Judge of the Court of Probate in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans

The petition of Charles A. Jacobs of the City of New Orleans and executor of the Estate of Robert Lewis deceased respectfully shows: that among the property left by the deceased is a quantity of boat lumber consisting of planks, gunwales & firewood on the bottom in front of the public warehouse-

And also a quantity of bricks at the same place supposed to be somewhere about so - the said Estate owes much money -some of which is becoming due daily -and it is believed that it would be to the interest of said estate to sell the said lumber and bricks immediately at cash for all sums under what $100, and 60 days credit for approved endorsed notes for all sums of $100 and upwards.

Wherefore the order of your honor is prayed to make the sale at public auction by an auctioneer on the aforesaid terms, & for general relief etc.

T. F. & T.H. McCaleb

Attorneys for Executor

I have no objections to the sale

prayed for and approve the terms.

Thomas W. Farrar

Attorney for Absent Heirs

We certify to have at the request of Mr. Robt Lewis given the line of a parcel of ground situated in the Suburb parish?? composed of the lots Nos. 6 X 7 of the Lanarc No.15 having together at ninety three feet front if it in on courthouse between Bartholemy and Melicente Streets by one hundred and twenty feet depth; the said front diminishing gradually as to give but thirty seven feet six inches on the back line adjoining on the NE to the Suburb DeLord on a line of one hundred and thirty-two feet two inches, all French measure.

New Orleans Oct. 1st 1830

John Riley

City Surveyor

Received Payment from

Mr. C. A. Jacobs

John Riley

City Surveyor

________________________________________________________________________

to the Honorable Charles Maurzian Judge of the Probate Court the Parish and City of New Orleans

The petition of Charles A. Jacobs testamentary executor of the late Robert Lewis respectfully represents, the sale of the effects and property of said Lewis, ordered by the Honorable court on the 11th of October last has been duly made. William Flower an auctioneer in the City of New Orleans, duly commissioned, as by the process verbal, of such sale, accompanying this petition will more fully appear. And consideration whereof your petitioner prays that said property be duly registered by the Register of Wills and be approved, and such other proceedings he had in the premises as by law may be required

G. Schmidt

Appearing for Petitioner

State Mississippi Bay St. Louis The 2 December 1832

Soon I ship you by the schooner Santa Pede three Negro men Bing the Propty of the Late

Robert Lewis, Esq.

Alenham and Lewis was shipped hear In the Schooner Mary Rose Capt Conlon about the 15 July 1832. Jeames and Rolen wase Shipped here about the 16 August on Board of the Steam Boat Long Branch all 4 of them Bing Sick . .On the 8 day of Oct. Jeames Departed this Life he Had Recovered of his Sickness But it appears that he wase shot some Few Days Before he left town and I spose It wase the Cause of his Death. Rolen Is very wek yet and has had a narrow Escape he may recover naw as the weather more cold provided he is not Exposed To mutch – I shall give you Bill when I Come to town wich will Be in about 12 days. Yours Respectfully,

Jesse Coward

Mr. C.A. Jacobs

Any further information Mr. Tillman will give you

00088

New Orleans Dec. 5th 1832 Recd. Of Charles A. Jacobs, Executor of Ro

Lewis decd Ten Dollars for passage of three Negroe men from Bay of St. Louis to this place _

William Haynes

Passage _________ $9 –

Do on railroad ____$1

to the.... _______$10

Jesse Coward-Bay St. Louis

December. 1832 - with three Negroe

Men - & Rect for passage s

Charles A. Jacobs

New Orleans

Gravier Street

Please pay the Capt. Williams

three dollars a peace passage

J. Coward

Court of probate's

in the matter of

the succession of

Robert Lewis Decd.

Grounds & motion

for a recovery? ___

???? of the Judge-

ment of homologation.

Mazurean & Slidell

Filed Aug 10th 1833

??Hossman

Dep. Register of Wills

In the matter of the Succession of { Court of Probates

Robert Lewis deceased {

The heirs and representatives of the deceased, to wit Howell Lewis, Zachiariah Lewis, residing in Albemarle County in the State of Virginia, William Lewis residing in Buckingham County, and Daniel Lewis residing in Fluvanna County in said State.

Come into this Honorable Court and pray that the judgement of homologation, entered by this honorable court on the fourteenth instant be recognized, read and finally set aside and on the following grounds, to wit:

1st that the accounts rendered by the person styling himself executor of the last will of the deceased is incorrect and illegal and said money particular? ???? they more particularly refer to the following terms of said account, to wit

That said person has resubmitted?[charged] the Estate with 2 1/2 percent on the moneys thereto belonging received by him as his commission, whereas he was not the executor of said Estate and has no rights to said commissions. 2^nd that he has illegally charged said Estate with a sum of money fixed? as counsel f__d with interest on his account.

2.That the said judgement is contrary to evidence inasmuch as his proof has never been offered of the requisite advertisements of said Action for an homologation having been made.

3. That's the said judgment is other respects.illegal and irregular.

John Ladell and.Jno C. McC…d

Mazurean

United States of America

State of Louisiana

By This Public Instrument of Protest

Be Its Known , That on this twenty seventh day of December in the year one thousand eight hundred and thirty two at the request of Mr. Howell Lewis agent of Nicholas Lewis Holder of the original note whereof a true copy is on the reverse hereof written; I, Greenbury Ridgely Stringer , Notary Public, dwelling in the city of New Orleans, duly commissioned,

Presented said note to the Charles A. Jacobs, Testamentary Executor of Robert Lewis the drawer and demanded payment thereof. I was advised that the same could not be paid.

Whereupon I, the said notary, at the request aforesaid, did Protest and by these presents do publicly and solemnly protest, as well against the drawer or maker of said note _as against all others whom it doth or may concern, for all exchange, re-exchange , damages, costs, charges in interest, suffered or to be suffered for want of payment of the said note.

Thus done and protested, in the presence of William Kennedy and David L. McCay , Witnesses.

In testimony whereof, I grant these presents under my signature,

and the impress of my seal of office, at the city of New Orleans, on

the day and year first before written.

Fees $2: G.R. Stringer

Notary Public

State of Louisiana

City of New Orleans

Be it known that this day before me William Christy, a Notary Public in and for the said City and Parish of New Orleans duly commissioned and qualified.

Personally came and appeared Nicholas Lewis of Morgan County state of Alabama brother of Robert Lewis late of this city deceased and one of his heirs who declared that he does by these presents make, ordain, authorize, constitute and appoint his brother Howell Lewis of Albemarle County State of Virginia to be his true lawful and special attorney in fact with full power and authority to act for & represent him in all things whatsoever connected with the settlement of the Estate of the said Robert Lewis in which he the said constituent shall or maybe interested and to this and to sue and be sued to plead and be impleaded to compound and settle all and every kind of dispute which may arise in the said settlement by arbitration or otherwise to enter into any partition of property credits etc. to give all the necessary receipts and discharges to others who may be concerned in the said the Estate or in the settlement thereof to receive for him all sum and sums of money, property, rights and credits of every kind which may be coming to him from the said Estate and generally to do all lawful acts and things whatsoever concerning the premises as fully in every respect as he himself might or could do if personally present and attorney or attorneys under him for the purposes aforesaid to make and at his side to argue?? revoke treaty ratifying allowing and confirming all & whatsoever his said attorney shall in his name legally do or cause to be done in about the premises by virtue of this act of procuration .

This done and passed in my office at the City of New Orleans aforesaid in the presence of W.T. Cull and J.B. Marks witnesses of lawful age and domiciliated in this city who hereunto sign these accesses together with said constituent and me the said notary this nineteenth Dec. 1832. W. T__Cull and J.B. Marks

Signed Nicholas Lewis, J. B. Marks, W.N. Howell, William Christy, NP

I certify the foregoing to be a true copy of the original act extant in my register -

in faith whereof I

grant these presents under my signature and seal office at New Orleans this 3rd April 1833.

William Christy

Notary Public

Howell Lewis & all Court of Probate's

vs.

Charles A. Jacobs & all

The answer of Charles A. Jacobs, Testamentary Executor of Robert Lewis deceased to the petition presented against himself and others in the above suits respectfully shews;

That your respondent, reserving to himself all benefit of exception to said petition on account of its errors and imperfections, for answer to so much of the same, as he has been advised it is material to answer, says; that having no knowledge of the relationship of the plaintiffs with his testator, he denies that the said Howell, William, Zacharie, and Daniel Lewis are, as they allege, the brothers of the said deceased and he requires legal proof of the fact ____ he also denied that they are the legitimate heirs of the said Robert Lewis, and every other allegation of the said petition not hereinafter specially admitted.

At this respondent protesting that the plaintiffs have no right whatever to institute or to prosecute the present suit for further answer says, that the said Robert Lewis, his testator died on or about the 26th of August last past, having previously made and published his last will and testament in due form, which is of record in this Court; and which your respondent avers is clothed with all the formalities required by law _ He further says, that the aforesaid will contains a legacy somewhat similar to the one described in pltffs petition to Archibald R. Taylor; but he denies that the same is a fidei commissum, or such a disposition as is in any manner prohibited by law ____ Your respondent further denies that the provision, contained in said Will, in favor of Nicholas Lewis, and in favor of the Boys and Girls Asylum should the said Nicholas leave no heirs of his body, our die without issue is a Substitution, or that the said Nicholas is by said provision charged to preserve for and to render to third persons to the things therein comprised; but he avers that the said pro

vision is legal in every respect.

And your respondent, referring to the Will of said Robert for more particular description of the legacies and bequests to the said Taylor and Nicholas, as well as for all its other provisions, which your respondent by no means admits to have been correctly recited in the petition of the plaintiffs, further answers and insists, that the will of the said Robert Lewis is good and valid, that all legal requisites have been observed in making it, and that all the provisions of the same are such, as are sanctioned by law.

Your respondent admits that as executor of the said Robert he has the ???? of the Estate, but he denies that he is bound to render any account of his administration to the plaintiffs, and further insisting that the petition of the said plaintiff should be dismissed for want of proper parties, and praying for such general and ulterior relief as the nature of the case may require he prays to be hence dismissed and have his costs to the defence of this suit appended.

G. Schmidt

of counsel for C. A. Jacobs

Estate of Robert Lewis Court of Probate's

The heirs of Robert Lewis

vs.

Charles A. Jacobs & others

On motion of L. Marzurian, Esq., one of the counsel for the heirs of the deceased, and upon his shewing to the court that an Hypothecary action has been brought before the Judicial District Court by Edward York vs. Jonathan Chase and the said heirs as appears from the certified copies of petitions herewith filed, and that upon said action a seizure order of sale of the Property mortgaged by both the said deceased & the said Jonathan Chase have been granted by the said Court, which sale according to public advertisement is to take place on this the 23 of August 1833.

And upon the said A. Mazurean shewing to the Court that it would be prejudicial to the interest of the plaintiffs in this Cause to suffer the property ???? to be sold and then ????? of the years ???? ???? the amount of the said Hypothecary action. W???? including interest and cost $2330 ___06 6 cts.

And upon the said L.Mazurean further shewing that the said York has also a claim similar to the above mentioned one for the sum of $2212. So being the amount of a note subscribing jointly by the said deceased and the said Chase for part payments of the same mortgaged property, which note is due today, and that it is desirable for said Estate through this claim should be paid in order to save costs.

It is ordered that the Register of Wills be & he is ?? authorized to have discounted such of the notes now presented in court by the said _____ as belonging to the said Estate of Robert Lewis as may be sufficient to pay the above mentioned sum, amounting together to Four thousand five hundred and forty three dollars and fifty six cents - providing the discount to be allowed does not exceed nine per centum per annum.

To the honorable the District Court, in and for the First Federal District of the State of Louisiana.

The petition of Edward Yorke, merchant, residing in New Orleans ~ respectfully shews, that on the 23rd day of the month of February 1832, your petitioner sold to one Robert Lewis, then residing in New Orleans, but who has since departed this life, and to one Jonathan Chase, then and now residing in New Orleans, Three Certain Lots of ground situated in the square bounded by Girod, Camp, Lafayette and St. Mary also Tirquod Streets, in the Suburb St. Mary of the City of New Orleans, and designated by numbers Seven, Eight, and Nine on a plan made by Alfred E. Forstall, Deputy City Surveyor for the city of New Orleans, on the 13th, 1832 and deposited in the office of Louis T. Caire, a Notary Public, residing in New Orleans for the totals on of Eight thousand eight hundred and fifty dollars, in payment whereof the said purchasers, Lewis and Chase, delivered to your petitioner four promissory notes of the sum of Two Thousand Two Hundred and Twelve dollars and fifty cents each, subscribed by these jointly and severally to the order of your Petitioner, payable at six, twelve, eighteen, and twenty four months after date, to wit, after the date of the 23rd February 1832. ~And to secure the payment at each of the said notes, your petitioner further shews, the aforesaid three several lots of grounds were mortgaged in favor of your Petitioner, by the said Lewis and Chase, each of the said notes being first identified with the act of sale of said Lots ~ all which will more fully and particularly appear, by reference to the act of sale of said Lots. ~a duly certified notarial copy of which, passed on the 6th of March 1832, is hereto annexed.~

Now your petitioner shews that when they second of the promissory notes herein before described and given by said Lewis & Chase to wit the notes payable at twelve months from said 22nd of February 1832 became due and payable to wit on the 26th of February 1833 payment of the same was demanded but refused wherefore the same was protested all which will more fully appear by reference to the Instrument of Protest hereto amended and said promissory note of which your petitioner is the true and lawful holder and own nd which note is for the sum of two thousand twelve and fifty cents, and with interest from the 26th February 1833 until paid, and three dollars and fifty cents costs of protests. Now your petitioner shews that since the sale and mortgage herein before mentioned the said Robert Lewis has departed this life leaving several heirs who have accepted his Estate but that there hath not yet as your Petitioner believes been any partitions of said Estate among his heirs and besides that the said lots of ground mortgaged as aforesaid have not been alienated by said Chase and Lewis ~ and that the obligation to pay the notes herein before described for which said property is mortgaged, is joint and several. ~ In consideration of all which, and that the heirs of said Lewis have refused and said Chase himself hath refused to pay said note or any part thereof, may it please this honorable Court to order said mortgaged premises herein before more particularly described to be seized and sold to satisfy the claim of your petitioner on the note hereto annexed Secure the payment of which said premises are mortgaged, to wit Two thousand two hundred twelve dollars and fifty cents, with interest from the 26 February 1833 until paid and Three dollars and fifty cents costs of protests; and more praying for costs in this behalf and for the payment of the sum of four dollars for the certified copy of the annexed Notarial Act of Sale and Mortgage, and for general relief and as in duty-bound..

By his attorney (signed) L.C. Duncan

Edward York the plaintiff in the foregoing petition being duly sworn saith to that all the facts stated in the said petition are true and that the Heirs of the late Robert Lewis and Jonathan Chase are justly and truly indebted to him the Defendant in the sum of twenty two hundred and twelve dollars and fifty cents exclusive of Interest and that the annexed promissory note is now due to him Petitioner, no part of the same having been paid and that the same is due jointly and severally by the heirs of Robert Lewis and Jonathan Chase.

Sworn to & subscribed (signed) E. York

this 29th June 1833

Before me (signed) Jno L. Lewis

It is ordered that the within described mortgaged property be seized and sold by

the Sheriff of the Parish of Orleans according to law.

New Orleans 29th June 1833

(signed) F. Grima

Judge per Interim

District Court

I hereby certify the foregoing petition, affidavit and order to be copies from the originals on file in the office of the clerk of his court, clerk office this 29th June 1833

Jno. L. Lewis

District Court

Edward York

vs.

Jonathan Chase

and others

L.C. Duncan

Court of Probates

Estate of Robert Lewis

Filed 23 August 1833

? Hossman the

Dep. Reg. Of Wills

L. Mazurean, Esq.

attorney for heirs of Robert Lewis

Please take notice that payment is demanded of you at the sheriff's office according to the demand of the within petition in three days from the service hereof or seizure will take place. New Orleans Jul. 3 1833

J. H. Holland

Deputy Sheriff

In the matter out of No. 10 .108 it in the First Judicial District Court of the

Edward York

vs.

Jonathan Chase

and others

Into the said court comes the said Edward York, and tendering his petition supplemental to the original petition filed by him in the above entitled suit, in this honorable Court, on Saturday the 29th June 1833, it next respectfully shews:

That since filing his said petition, he has discovered that the heirs of Robert Lewis, mentioned in said original petition, are not resident in Louisiana. ~ that the said heirs, to wit, Sarah Lewis, Nicholas Lewis, Howell Lewis, Zachariah Lewis, residing in Albemarle County, Virginia, - William Lewis, residing in Buckingham County, Virginia, and Daniel Lewis, residing in Fluvana County, Sarah Lewis Davis, with two nephews and two nieces, whose names and residents are unknown to your petitioner, are not represented in the State of Louisiana.

The petitioner further stated to this honorable court, that he is desirous of having the property described in his original petition and the Notarial Act, thereto attached, sold for the whole amount of the debt due to him the petitioner to satisfy the special mortgage on said property in favor of this petitioner, to wit $2212.50 due as stated in said original petition all the 26 February 1833 with interest - and $2212.50 due in 18 months from the 23 February 1832 ~ and $2212.50 due in 24 months from 23 February 1832, which will appear from the before mentioned Notarial Act to be the same terms of credit as were granted the said Robert Lewis and Jonathan Chase by this petitioner, when he sold to him the property therein mentioned.

May it please the honorable court therefore to appoint an Attorney to represent the within named heirs or Robert Lewis, deceased, and to order that the original petition in this behalf and this supplemental petition be served on said Attorney - and that this Supplemental petition be also served on Jonathan Chase, living in New Orleans; - and also to order that the Mortgaged Property described in the Notarial Act attached to the original petition in this past, be sold

District Court

Edward York

vs.

Jonathan Chase

& others

Duncan

Court of Probates

Estate of Robert Lewis

Filed 23 August 1833

? Hossman the

Roy Mills

L. Mazurian, Esq.

attorney for heirs of Robert Lewis

Please take notice that payment is demanded of you at the sheriff's office according to the demand of the within petition in three days from the service here rob or seizure will take place. New Orleans Jul. 3 1833

J. H. Holland

Deputy Sheriff

To the honorable Charles Mazurian, Judge of the Court of Probates in and for the City and Parish of New Orleans.

The answer of Nicholas Lewis, residing in Morgan County, in the state of Alabama, but now in New Orleans to the petition of a Howell Lewis & others, in which this respondent is included in with Charles A. Jacobs & others. respectfully pleas that he admits that the plaintiffs are declared? heirs of his brother Robert Lewis, late of the parish of New Orleans deceased. That being ignorant of the facts charged in the petition aforesaid on which the nullity of the will of the said Robert Lewis is alleged the can neither admit nor deny the same. That he is willing that your honor after investigating the facts of the case should render such judgment therin as may be in accordance with law required.

Nicholas Lewis

Heirs of Lewis { Court of Probates

vs. {

C. A. Jacobs {

& {

others {

It is agreed that all questions affecting the legacy to A. R. Taylor alone and reserved for future trial should the will as a proper ??? be decided by the District Court.

S. Lewis Mazurian

Estate of R Lewis

to Lewis S. Shaw Dr?

1832 and

March 28th	Burgundy pitch planter	$.50
“	6 oz. brown mixture	$.63
“	To leeches	$1.
30	1 bot Saturne water	.50
April 1	Brown mixture and pills Naphia?	1.
7	Bluten? Planter	.50
12	Serdlet Powders	.75
18	Black book aromatic spirit ammonia	.50 .50
28	Pills oplanter	.75
May 3	Spec O & C Latch	.25
10	----- & Black Drop	1.50
12	GLY & Nitre & Mixture Phial Liniment	.75 .50
13	piles Pitch Planter	.13 .38
June 24	C & Latch of Bank of Next	.75
July 16	1 Large Pitch Planter	1.50
30	2 mixtures	.75
Aug. 4	2 Mixture Kin $1 12 pills Quinine	1.75
15	12 pills Quinine & Planter	1.12
17	1 Pot Comp Lunt Bark 1 Phial Paragoric	1. .25
	Amt carr’d over	$16.26

1832
Sept	7 15	By cash Recd of live Modes for Rent 23 “ at the Canal bank 2073.05 “ “ Bk. Of Lewis 454.38	2547	03 a
	29	“ Recd Of Wm. Flower, auctioneer for Rest proceeds of cash sales of bricks and lumber sold at auction on the 25 July	278	33
	30	Bills receivable for Joshua Baldwin’s note@ 40 as for 25 Jul for bricks. Sold auction 500 “ “ M. Rouder & C. Roberts 60 days for lumber 187	747
Oct	4	Cash Recd for 24 shares stock in the merchants insurance company sold by order of the quarter probates E Ins 912
	12	Cash, 18,000 Loose ?? @ 2 c 360 9 Stk?? Tobneer 10661th @ 2 5/8 279.84 18 shares City Bank stock 612 2163.84 Less Auctioneer Comm advg 8 47.73	2116	11
	31	Cash received a Christian Temper 1 M 1 Ins 1._ Cash received of Washington Jett 1 18 20 Cash received of Levi Moses to 7.23? Cash received off repairs allowed 350 19.50 Cash received of Ellen Casway

In the Court of Probates in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans

Friday, Dec. 22nd 1834

Succession of Robert Lewis

The rule taken by Sarah Price Bumpass on the attorney of the absent heirs was this day tried by the court.

John Slidell for Sarah Price Bumpass

J. J. Mercier, attorney of absent heirs

When the court being satisfied with the testimony taken contradictorily with J. J. Mercier, counsel aforesaid Do Order that said Rule be made absolute and that the Register of wills do pay over to Edward Franklin Bumpass the notes and monies now deposited in court as a part of the share of one Sarah Price Bumpass in the Succession of Robert Lewis, according to the Act of partition on file in this case, and that the said Edward F. Bumpass be authorized to receive from Stephen Mazurian Esq. the sum of seventy seven dollars thirty one cents now in his hands, and from John Slidell the sum of forty eight dollars seventy cents also in his hands, and which have been comprised in the portion of said Sarah Price Bumpass and by consent of parties it is agreed that this rule shall be signed forth with.

New Orleans Dec. 23 1834

J. Maurian

In the court of probates in and for the City and Parish of New Orleans

Saturday, 2nd November 1833

Estate of Robert Louis (

Upon opposition of heirs (

To accounts of C.A. Jacobs (

This cause was taken up this day for argument by consent of counsel - S. Mazurian for the heirs of R. Lewis, G. Schmidt for Charles A. Jacobs

When after hearing argument of respective counsel; It is ordered by this court that the opposition of the heirs of the deceased Robert Lewis to the accounts presented by Charles A. Jacobs, the former executor, be maintained and that the account or talbin? Of said C. A. Jacobs be amended by placing therein to the credit of the Estate of said Lewis, the sum of Ten Thousand eight hundred ninety-six dollars and ninety-two and two-thirds cents. ($10,896. 92 2/3 ) Ordered further that his account thus amended be, and the same is hereby homologated and approved, showing of balance in favor of the Estate of Twenty four thousand two hundred and fifty eight dollars seventy eight and two thirds cents. ($24,258.78 2/3 cents) deposited in court on the 23rd of August last in divers? promissory notes, leaving a balance of ten thousand eight hundred fifty one dollars and twenty five cents ( $10,851.25 ) due by said Charles A. Jacobs to said the Estate.

Ordered lastly, that the costs

Howell Lewis & al { Court of Probates

vs. {

Charles A. Jacobs etc. {

Be it remembered that at the trial of this cause, the plaintiffs having introduced the Act of Superscription of the Mystic Will of Robert Lewis offered a witness one W. F. Turberville to prove that the facts appearing from said Superscription and thereon declared as having been done were not done, to which Defen. objected.

1^st. Because there was no sufficient allegations to that effect in the petition

2^dly. Because the Superscription was an Authentic Act, which the plaintiffs had no right to contradict by oral testimony &

3^dly. Because the pltffs claiming as heirs had no right to contradict the act of the testator.

4^thly. Because the will being an Act conveying real estate could not be vitiated or impaired by paral? Testimony.

Which objections the court overruled to which the Defts except.

January 11th 1833

Charles Maurian,

Judge

Insert page 924

Robert Lewis In account with Charles A. Jacobs & interest of up to Nov. 15, 1832 @ 6 %

To the Honorable Chas. Maurian, Judge of the Court of Probates in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans

The petition of Charles A. Jacobs & Wm. M. Lambeth merchants residing in New Orleans.

Respectfully represents,

That they are the owners by purchase of parts of the Estate of the late Robert Lewis, whose Succession is opened in this Honorable court, which fact is shown by documents already on file among the papers of said Succession and now stand in the same situation that the said heirs whose interest they have purchased - they also represent that on the day of April 1835, a large amount of real property was sold, on the petition of your present petitioners; and they became purchasers of a part thereof which will be seen by the process verbal of the Register of Wills by whom it was sold - that holding the interest of heirs they were not bound to pay the purchase money until a liquidation was had, and the ballance in their favour or against them ascertained being purchase money of property belonging to said Succession: but wishing that everything might be done without delay or trouble, they executed their several promissory notes according to the terms and conditions of said sale all of which are now on the hands of the Register of Wills of this Court; and that said notes, together with a number given by S. Herman & Son which, with others, are also in the hands of the D. Register of wills.

Your petitioners as before stated, being interested in said Succession and standing in the relation? of heirs as aforesaid, they are now desirous of withdrawing their own sides/sister? from the possession of the said Register of wills, and also five of three thousand dollar notes each given by the said Hermann & Son and represent further that John Slidell Esq. who represents all the other heirs not purchased out by your petitioners is entirely willing and consents thereto and to that end gave his written consent before leaving this city which is hereto annexed and made part hereof.

Wherefore may it please your honor in consideration of the promises to order that all of the said notes given by your petitioners together with the five others mentioned in the annexed agreement be delivered to your petitioners by the Register of wills they giving their receipt therefor - and such other orders in the premises as your honor may deem just and right in the premises and as in duty-bound they will ever pray.

Greer B. Duncan

Attorney for Petitioners

Estate of R. Lewis {

vs. {

Court of Probates {

I consent that Charles A. Jacobs & W. M. Lambeth do receive from the Register of wills five of the notes of three thousand dollars each priced? by J. Hermann & Son for purchase of property after Succession also the notes given by them the said Jacobs and Lambeth for property purchased at said sale.

G. W. Hill

the notes for ____ date

may be fixed???

Probate Court

In the matter of the succession

of Robert Lewis deceased

Petition a Jacobs and Lambeth

touching the purchase money notes

praying that part be

delivered to them as _____

G. B. Duncan

attorney for petitioners

Filed July 28 1835

Unreadable signatures

It is ordered that the Register of wills deliver up to these petitioners upon their receipt all the notes given by them for the purchaser property of the succession sold by the said

and that he also build liver them the five promissory notes of same Herman Sr. each for the sum of $3000 as prayed for in the within petition and consented to buy John Slidell Esq.

New Orleans 28th July 1835

Charles Maurian, Judge

The State of Louisiana

Messrs Charles A. Jacobs, Archibald R. Taylor, Hardin Tillman… female orphan society, and society for the relief of destitute orphan boys.

You are hereby summoned to comply with the prayer of the annexed petition or to file your answer thereto in writing, with the Register of wills in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans, at his office in New Orleans, in ten days after the service hereof; and if you fail herein, judgment will be rendered against you by default.

If witness the Honorable Charles A. Maurian, Judge of the court of probates, this 15th day of December in the year of our Lord 1832.

___ Hofmann

Succession (

of (

Robert Lewis (

Testimony taken on trial of rule taken by John Slidell Esq. of Sarah Price Bumpass wife of Edward Franklin Bumpass.

Jacob Tilghman witness for plaintiff duly sworn declares that he has lived in New Orleans with Robert Lewis - witness is nephew of Robert Lewis and brother of Hardin L. Tilghman. Witness knows Mr. Bumpass who is now in court. Bumpass is married to Sarah Price Lewis a cousin of witness - witness was present at the marriage - which took place some months ago in Giles County state of Tennessee - Sarah Price Lewis was the widow of Rogers before she married Bumpass. Sarah Price Lewis is the daughter of Hardin Lewis and niece of Robert Lewis.

Cross-examined by J.L. Mercier, Esq. attorney of absent heirs of Robert Lewis deceased.

Witness was well acquainted with his uncle Robert Lewis deceased having resided with him in New Orleans for five years. Lewis had drays - and used to speculate -the deceased was a native of Virginia – witness is personally acquainted with Sarah Price Lewis his cousin and knows that she is the wife of Bumpass.

The court of probates in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans

Saturday 13th Feb. 1836

Present the Honorable Charles Maurian, Judge

Estate of (

Robert Lewis (

( On motion of Felix Grima Esq. of counsel for John Freeland. It is ordered by the court that the heirs and representatives of the late Robert Lewis shew cause on Saturday next the 20th Inst.at 9:00 AM why the mortgage executed & consented to by said Freeland in favour of said Lewis by act of 12^th May 1829 before G. R. Stringer Esq. then a Notary Public of this City should not be raised & cancelled the consideration for which said Mortgage was given having been fully satisfied by said Freeland.

Extract from the minutes

(Unreadable signature)

5 copies

Court of probates

Estate of Robert Lewis

Order

Copies inside to be served

On Mylar? S. Mazurian,

John Slidell, W. M. Lambeth

and C.A. Jacobs

Delivered Feb. 8^th 1836

on the same day served copy of the

written order on S. Mazurian Esq.

by having the same as his domicile,

& on, John Slidell, and W.M. Lambeth

& C.A. Jacobs all three in person

Returned Feb. 9 1830

____ Buisson

Sheriff

Court of probates

Estate of Robert Lewis

Order

Copy inside to be served on

S. Mazurian Esq.

Received October 191833 and

on the same day served

copy of the ______ motion

on S. Mazurian Esq

by handing the same to his

wife at his domicile

1018 Royal Street

Resd 21 October 1832 .

Be it known that on this 12th day of May in the year one thousand eight hundred and twenty nine before me Greenbury Ridgely Stringer ~ Notary Public in and for the City of New Orleans duly commissioned personally came and appeared John Freeland of this city who declared that as an act of friendship and with a view to assist him, Mr. Robert Lewis of this city has endorsed for the purpose of rendering the same negotiable, his, the said John Freeland's promissory notes for the sum of Eleven hundred and ninety five dollars dated the twenty seventh day of April last payable nine months after date to the said Robert Lewis or his order.

Now therefore it in order to guarantee secure and to save harmless the said Robert Lewis and his heirs from all loss damage and detriment and all suits, troubles or molestations by or on account of his said endorsement, He the said John Freeland declared that he did by these presents mortgage, affect, & specially hypothecate unto the said Robert Lewis his heirs and assigns, (he being present and accepting) Three slaves his property namely Daniel aged about twenty one years and Maria aged about seventeen years which he lately purchased from Thomas Branch by

act before me notary on the twenty seventh day of April last and a Slave named James aged about twenty years purchased by him from John Dicks by act before me notary on the fifth day of March Eighteen hundred and twenty eight.

The said John Freeland hereby binding himself and his heirs not to alienate or incumber the said three slaves to the prejudice on this mortgage.

From the annexed Certificate of the Register of Mortgages it appears that there are no mortgages recorded against the said John Freeland on the said three slaves.

(Signed) John Freeland

Done and passed in presence of William Rondeau and William Henry Rondeau witnesses and me Notary.

(Signed) John Freeland

Robert Lewis: W. Rondeau, W.H. Rondeau

G. Stringer, Not pub.

I the undersigned Notary Public duly commissioned and sworn in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans State of Louisiana do hereby certify that the foregoing is a true and faithful Copy of the Original extant among the records of G. R. Stringer late a Notary Public of this City and Parish and of whom I am now the successor in office.

In faith whereof I have granted these presents under my Signature and the Impress of my Seal of Office at this said City of New Orleans State of Louisiana on this Sixth day of February in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-six of the Independence of the United States of America the Sixtieth.

F. Grima

Notary Public

In the Court of Probates in and for the City & Parish of New Orleans

Friday 16th August 1833~

Present the Honorable Charles Maurian Judge

Estate of Robert (on motion of Edw. Mazurian Esq. of Counsel for the heirs of the

Lewis (deceased Robert Lewis, It is ordered by the court that Charles A.

(Jacobs shew cause on Tuesday next the 20th Instant at 9 o’clk AM why the order entered on the 14th Instant homologating the account of his administration should not be set aside and rescinded.

Extract from the minutes

(unreadable signatures)

In the court of probates in and for the city and Parish of New Orleans

Friday October 18 1833

Present the Honorable Charles Maurian

Judge

Estate of Robert (On motion of G. Schmidt Esquire of Counsel for Charles A. Jacobs

Lewis (It is ordered by the court that the opposition filed by the heirs of Robert (Lewis to the accounts presented by said C. A. Jacobs be fixed for

trial for Wednesday next the 23^rd day of the present month at 9 o’clock a m and that notice thereof be given to the adverse party.

Extract from the minutes

(Unreadable signatures)

Dep. Rg. Of Wills

Amount sales of slaves brought forward

Sale namely Sam Mark, Hercules and Nathan, and four other of the said slaves namely Coleman (improperly called Aleman), Jim Cannon, Abraham and Rowland being absent, and its being deemed by the Executor of said Estate to be unsafe to have them brought into the city during the prevalence of the cholera, the undersigned auctioneer closed the sale of slaves belonging solely to the said Estate until further notice, and proceeded to the sale of that part of the Leases of Ground with the Improvements thereon mentioned in said order of sale as being solely owned by the Said Estate, which said portion of ground was for the convenience of purchasing and for the benefit of the sale thereof divided into four different lots and sold separately, as following.

1st. all the right, title and Intent of said Deceased in and to be on expired term of the lease of a certain Lot of Ground with the improvements thereon, situated on the western side of New Sever Street and in the square which is bound on the opera side by Hunter Street and on the lower side by Benjamin Street, being a part of the ground which was leased by Alexander Milne to John Forsythe until the 19th day of October 1838 by public act passed before Carlisle Pollock Notary Public in this City under date of 19^th. Sept. 1828, And all the rights, interest and privileges granted by said lease to John Forsythe having been acquired by the said Deceased during his lifetime will be conveyed to the purchaser of this Lot and to the extent of the Law, the said purchaser to be bound by the conditions and stipulations in said lease contained in favor of the said Alexander Milne and the Buildings and Improvements which may Exist on said Lot at the expiration of said lease to revert to the said Alexander Milne or his assigns: the Said Lot is bound on the upper side by the property of one Louis Fanchen, has a front of seventy five feet six inches English measure on New Sever Street running back in parallel lines to the depth of about one hundred and seventy feet, and includes all the ground back of that point and between that and Tchapitoulus Street which was contained in said lease from Alexander Milne, as per Plan and Survey made by Mr. Timpel? in which this Lot is marked number one (N. 1) and is sold subject to a ground rent of three hundred dollars per annum, commencing from the 19th of October last past to be paid by the purchaser semi-annually from that date. The improvements consist of a two-story Frame Building in front about 58 feet in length, a wooden kitchen with bake oven, a large Shed used as a Stable and a range of Negro huts in the rear of the Lot; It is now under lease to the first of December next, the purchaser not to be entitled to receive rent.

Dolls

Continued

17795.

Amount of sale of slaves brought forward…..

until after that time. The terms of Sale are that for the security of the ground rent the purchaser will give bond with approved Security, or in lieu of the Security required the purchaser shall have the Buildings kept under Insurance against fire until the expiration of the Lease and the policy deposited with the E xecutor of said Estate and for the purchase money of the unexpired lease of the ground and the improvements thereon he will furnish approved indorsed Notes payable, one third at six months, one third at twelve months and one third at eighteen months, with mortgage: and the same having been duly cried in English/French, and all the above conditions and stipulations being duly announced and explained in both languages, the said lot was adjudicated toThomas Barrett, he being the last and highest bidder, for the sum of eleven hundred seventy dollars….

2^nd All the right, title and intent of said Deceased in and to another certain lot of ground, being also a part of the grounds included and said lease from Alexander Milne to John Forsyth, and marked and described in said Plan and Survey as Lot number two (N. 2) bounded on the upper side by the above described lot No. 1 having a front of about sixty two feet English measure on New Sever Street with the depth of 64 feet on the upper line and of about sixty feet in the lower line; The Improvements are, a frame building in front about 59 feet in length divided into three tenements with kitchen & privies in the rear of each; one of which tenements now leased for one year from the 7^th August 1832 at the rate of twenty three dollars per month, the purchaser to be entitled to rent from the 7^th November Instant, One under lease for one year from the 14^th August 1832 at seventeen dollars per month the purchaser to receive rent from the 14^th November Instant, & the other was under rent when advertised at the rate of twenty dollars per month, the purchaser to be entitled to rent from the day of sale: This Lot is sold subject to a ground rent of Two hundred dollars per annum, commencing from the 19^th October last past and payable by the purchaser semi-annually from that date, and the same being duly and as aforesaid, and the terms and conditions of sale, as also the Stipulations and Conditions in the lease from Alexander Milne being announced and explained as being the Same as in the sale of the Lot Number One. Being adjudicated to Thomas Barrett at the price of thirteen hundred dollars.

3^rd. All the rights, title and interest of said Deceased in another certain Lot of Ground, being also a part of the ground included in said lease from Alexander Milne to John Forsyth and marked and described in said Plan as the Number Three (No. 3), bounded on the upper side by said Lot No. 2 having

Dollars

Continued

17795.

1170.

1300.

20265.

Amount of sales brought forward

a front of seventy-eight feet and ten inches English measure on New Sever Street, extending to the corner of New Levee and Benjamin Streets on which latter Street it has a front of sixty six feet with a depth of about sixty-five feet on the upper line: the improvements are, four small separate tenements each of which has a kitchen & privy in the rear: one of which tenements is leased to the 18th February 1833 at the rate of twenty dollars per month the purchaser to be entitled to rent from the 18th November Instant, and the other rented at twelve dollars per month the purchaser to receive rent from the seventh November Instant: this lot is sold subject to a ground rent from the 19th October last past at the rate of two hundred dollars per annum and payable by the purchaser semi-annually from that date, and the same being duly cried as aforesaid, and the terms and conditions of sale, as also the obligation of the purchaser to comply with the stipulations in the lease from Alexander Milne being announced and explained as being the same as in the sale of the lot number one, so was adjudicated to Thomas Derrick for the sum of two thousand four hundred dollars.

4^th. All the right, title and interest of said deceased in and to another certain lot of ground being also a part of the ground included in said lease from Alexander Milne to John Forsyth, marked and described in said Plan as Lot Number Four (No. 4) having a front of one hundred twenty-five feet and nine inches English measure on Benjamin Street, bounded on the west by the property of Frink on the east by the rear of the lots No. 2 and No. 3 and having a depth of one hundred forty feet and nine inches as per Plan. The improvements consist of a Brick Clamp? and an extensive wooden shed: this lot is sold subject to a ground rent of one hundred dollars per annum commencing on the 19th October last past payable by the purchaser semi-annually from that date. And being duly cried as aforesaid, and the terms and conditions of sale as well as the stipulations in the lease from Alexander Milne being announced as being the same as in the sale of the lot number one, it was adjudicated to Mr. Thomas Derrick for the sum of twelve hundred and twenty-five dollars.

5^th. Four tobacco screw presses erected in the warehouse occupied by the said Deceased, belonging to said Estate, terms ninety days credit for an approved indorsed note, adjudged to Thomas Derrick for the sum of two hundred dollars.

Dollars.

Continued.

20265.

2400.

1225.

24090

Amount of sales on account of the estate of Robert Lewis brought forward

and having closed this sale of all the property belonging solely to the said estate advertised for sale at this time with the exceptions of three Negroes bid, and for Negro's absent as before mentioned, I the auctioneer aforesaid provided to the Salem of the property owned on joint account of the said estate and Mr. Charles A. Jacobs of this city, at each one half as expressed in said order of sale, the said Charles A. Jacobs a green to said sale and joining in the same for the purpose of effecting a partition of said property. viz.

Firstly: of the eleven slaves, being part of the joint property as aforesaid previous to the Sale of which the terms were duly announced in French and English to be the same as of the slaves sold on account of the estate of Robert Lewis.

1^st. Reuben a yellow man about 22 years old a drain and Ann Carter was adjudicated to J. House for nine hundred twenty-five dollars

2^nd. Gabriel a Negro man about 25 years old a drain and Ann Carter, was adjudicated to J. House for the sum of seven hundred & fifty dollars

3^rd. Linus a Negro man, about 25 years old a laborer, with his wife a Negro woman about 23 years old, represented as being unhealthy, were sold together and adjudged to I. House for eleven hundred and fifty dollars

4^th. George a Negro man about 25 years old a laborer was adjudicated to Blineau for the sum of seven hundred twenty dollars

5^th. Fleming a Negro boy about twelve years old accustomed to driving a dray, was adjudicated to John A. Linton for the sum of five hundred and eighty dollars

6^th. Anthony a Negro Boy about 13 years old, a Brick Carrier, having a Gono on the leg or five which was exhibited and examined at the time of sale, was adjudged to H. L. Tilghman for four hundred ninety dollars

7^th. Jackman, a Negro boy about 13 years old, a brick carrier, was adjudicated to John A. Linton for the sum of five hundred fifty dollars

8^th. Preston a Negro boy about 13 years old, a brick carrier was adjudged to John A. Linton for the sum of six hundred twenty dollars

9^th. Page or Giles, a Negro boy about nine years old was represented and cried as being unhealthy and was adjudicated to B.L. Canonge for the sum of three hundred fifty dollars

10^th. Tom, a Negro boy about 14 years old, a brick carrier, was adjudicated to John A. Linton for the sum of five hundred fifty dollars

Dollars.

Continued.

925.

750.

1150.

720.

580.

490.

550.

620.

350.

550.

6685.

24090.

$24090

For him to have amount of sales on account of the estate of Robert Lewis brought forward.

Amount of sales on joint account continued (slaves)

And IV auctioneer aforesaid proceeded lastly to the sale of the lease on joint account as expressed in said order of sale, viz.

All the right, title and interest of the said deceased and of Charles A. Jacobs in and to the unexpired term of the lease of all that portion of ground which is bounded on the west by New Sever Street, on the north by Benjamin Street, on the south or upper line by the property of the Orleans Cotton Press Company, and crossing the Street now about to be opened by this City Corporation to the low water mark of the river, being a part and all the remaining unsold portion of the ground included in the lease from Alexander Milne to John Forsyth by acts before Carlisle Pollock Notary Public under date of 19th September 1828 and expiring on the 19th October 1838 with the accession of Bottom? thereto since the date of that lease. The purchaser will acquire all the rights and privileges now enjoyed by or belonging to the said indoors by Art in consequence of said lease from Alexander Milne and will be bound by the stipulations in said lease contained in favour of said Alexander Milne, and all buildings and improvements which may remain are be on said premises at the expiration of said lease to be and remain the property of said Alexander Milne. The improvements now existing on said ground consist of three extensive wooden warehouses connected together under one enclosure, with Gates and alleys between them, a whole capable of containing from five to six thousand Hogshead's of tobacco, which with the unexpired lease of the ground and sold subject to a ground rent of four hundred dollars per annum, commencing on the 19th of October last past and payable by the purchaser semi-annually from that date. This property being now subleased to the first day of February next the purchaser will not be entitled to possession until that date, but he may have the privilege of taking immediate possession by paying rent from the day of sale at the rate of $100 per month until the said first day of February next, provided he decides on availing himself of this privilege before passing the act of sale: the said? Houses are covered by insurance to the 21st January next to the amount of Twelve thousand dollars.

Dollars.

Continued.

6685.

24090.

Amount of sales on account of the estate of Robert Lewis brought forward.

Amount of sales on joint account continued.

+ which the purchaser may have the benefit out. The terms of sale for the unexpired lease of the ground with the improvements thereon are that the purchaser will furnish approved indorsed notes , payable one third at six months, one third at twelve months, and one third at eighteen months with mortgage: and all the above conditions and stipulations being duly announced and explained in English and French and the sale of said property being duly cried in both languages and Mr. Thomas Barrett team in the last and highest bidder, the same was adjudicated to him for the sum of fifteen thousand five hundred dollars.

And the total amount of sales up property on joint amount included in said order of sale being twenty-two thousand one hundred eighty-five dollars, and the one-half of the account thereof being on account of said estate, is extended to the sales of property belonging solely to set estate, amounting to eleven thousand and ninety-two dollars and fifty cents.

Total sales on account of the estate of Robert Lewis. Dollars.

6685.

15500.

22185.

24090.

11092.50

15182.50

To the Hon. Charles Maurian, Judge

of the quarter probates in and

for the city and parish of Orleans.

The petition of Charles A. Jacobs a resident of the City of New Orleans respectfully shows: That Robert Lewis late a resident of the said City departed this life on Sunday the 26th day of August 1832 instant, and made his last will prior to his decease which is now in the possession of your petitioner therewith ready to be presented. That the said Lewis died in said City and that his estate is almost entirely here situated, Wherefore the petitioner prays that the said Will being a mystic one, may be proved, opened, and ordered to be executed & for general relief

etc. etc.

Tho: F. McCaleb

Atty for Ch^s. A. Jacobs

Personally appeared Ch^s. A. Jacobs who being sworn says, that the foregoing allegations are true.

Sworn and subscribed before

Me this 28th day of Aug. 1832

Martin Blacklog Charles A. Jacobs (signature?)

R. of Wills

Estate of Robert Lewis ( Court of Probates 22^nd August 1833

on the rule to set aside (

homologation of account (

G. Schmidt Esq. witness for Charles A. Jacobs sworn says that four or five days previous to the filing the account, to wit 4 or 5 days previous to 31 July last, deponent was on the way from his dwelling to that of Mr. Mazurean with the account & voucher& met Mr. Mazurean in Royal Street & informed him that he was on the way to see him with the account & voucher which he witness then had in his hand & requested Mr. Mazurean to take them for the purpose of examining them to which Mr. Mazurean replied that he would examine them in court & as well as witness can recollect he directed him to file them in Court; Witness understood that Judge Maurian was at the time absent and thought there was no Court. He afterwards learned that Judge Grima officiated in his place and he accordingly filed the account some four or five days (deponent and now says thinks it was on Saturday the 10th of August) previous to the application made by deponent to have the document homologated he met Mr. Mazurean under the gallery of the Court house where he inquired of deponent if he had filed the account & voucher to which deponent replied in the affirmative, as well as deponent recollects Mr. Mazurean on receiving this information replied that he would examine it or look into, or something to that effect.

The Estate of Robert Lewis

In account with Nancy Tinsley

1832

To furnishing cloth and making 44 shirts for the Negroes of the deceased

“ furnishing off and making 28 pantaloons for do

“ altering three pairs of pantaloons for do

“ furnishing cloth and making one pair “ “

“ do do do eight women dresses “

“ do do do three coats and pantaloons

for Ditto

Cash paid for provisions & marketing &c For the Negroes of the deceased from 26th August to 27th October during the time they were with Harden L. Tilghman as for a/c rendered.

Paid for medicine etc. & services in the Capacity of Nurse to the Negroes of the deceased part of the time during the Cholera epidemic

By this sum charged to H. L. Tilghman as for a/c% d for provisions etc. From 27th August to 27th October 1832

28.25

27.12

13.63

10.

83.00

159.02

300.00

$542.02

159.02

$383.00

6th March 1833

Rcvd a Mr. Charles A. Jacobs executor of Robert Lewis deceased Three hundred eighty-three dollars in full of the above account .

Beurrit?? A. Crawford

Atty for Nancy Tinsley

In the Court of Probates in and for the City and Parish of New Orleans

Monday June 3, 1833

Present the Honorable Charles Maurian, Judge

Howell Lewis & als (On motion of John Slidell Esq. of account of the vs. (for the plaintiffs & on suggesting to the Court that

Charles A. Jacobs & als (Charles A. Jacobs never failed to comply with the

Judgment rendered on the 3^rd. of April 1833 directing him to render forthwith a faithful account of his administration & deliver over to the Register of Wills all the property movable and immovable and slaves ?? which remain in his possession and to pay into court such sums of money or obligations which he may have in his hands belonging to the Succession of Robert Lewis, It is ordered that said Jacobs do comply with said Judgement on or before Saturday next the 8th day of the present Month at 9 o’clock am .

Extract from the minutes

?? Hoffman

Dep. Rg. Of Wills

In the Court of Probates in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans

Thursday 30th July 1835

Estate of Robert ( Present the Hon. Charles Maurian Judge

Lewis (

On motion of Thomas Slidell Esq. of counsel for the Succession It is ordered by the court that Gabriel W. Denton Show Cause on Monday next the 3^rd. day of August at 9 O’clock AM why a Writ of Destringus should not issue against him. He...... to compel him to comply with the adjudication to him of one of two slaves belonging to this Succession sold by the Register of Wills on the 10th of April last past pursuant to an order of the court to Wit, the slaves Peter and James the final (sale) named for the sum of $630 and the other $700 at a credit of 6.12.18 and 24 months for approved endorsed notes secured by special mortgage.

Extract from the minutes

W.F.C. Duplessis

Howell Lewis Att'y ( Court of Probates

vs. (

Charles A. Jacobs Att'y (

Sarah Lewis of Fluvana County Virginia comes into court & prays leave to intervene in this Cause A. Jacobs that in any judgment which may be rendered bite?(both) on the plaintiff and defendent in this case her rights or titles is fe??? To he in ????? the approving of the Will may be rescinded.

Richard M. Carter

Att'y for party intervening

To the Hon. the first Judicial District Court of the State of Louisiana

The petition of Nathaniel Cox of this city curator of and tutor ad bono to the minors Thomas L. Francis, L. and Charlotte G. Harmon, only heirs of the late Thomas L. Harmon humbly sheweth that Robert Lewis also of this city of New Orleans is justly indebted to the estate of the late Thomas L. Harmon in the sum of Eight hundred dollars to wit at five hundred dollars for twelve months rent of a large warehouse in Magazine Street from the 6th April 1831 to 6th April 1832 and three hundred dollars for twelve months rent of the small warehouse in same street from 12^th April 1831 to 12 April 1832 making in all the aforesaid sum of Eight hundred dollars.

Your petitioner further shews that the said the Robert Lewis neglected and refused to pay said sum although often amicably requested so to do. Wherefore, your petitioner pray that said Robert Lewis be cited to answer said petition and that after due course of law he be condemned to pay to your petitioner in his aforesaid capacity the said some of Eight hundred dollars with interest & costs and also that he may have all other relief as the nature of the case may require and as in duty bound etc.

(signed) Charles F. Dannoy

Att'y for petitioner

District Court

I hereby certify the foregoing petition

to be a copy from the original on file

in the office of the clerk of this court

clerk's office 24 July 1832

W. Farrie Dep. ____

August 30 1832 Answer filed. Sent denial. Claim in _________for $175.63 and payment.

The State of Louisiana

to the sheriff of the Parish of New Orleans

Greetings

we command you that you restrain J. B. D. Casenabe by all his goods and chattels lands and tenements in your Parish until he shall pay and satisfy the sum of $800 with legal interest thereon from the 15th day of March 1833 until paid and costs of suit being the amount of a certain final judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the matter of the succession of Robert Lewis where render testamentary executor of said Lewis was up talent and the said J. B. D. Casenabe was appealed to? Which judgment was rendered upon an appeal from the judgment of the quarter probates in and for the City and Parish of New Orleans rendered on the 16th day of December 1833 and signed on the 31st of the same month, in the same matter, and what you shall have done in this respect you returned to our said quarter probates on the first Monday of September next, and have you thus there this writ.

Witness the Hon. Charles Maurian

Judge of our said court this 21st day of

August In the yhear of our Lord One Thousand eight

Hundred and thirty four of the 59th of the Indepen-

dence of the United States of America

?? Hoffman

Dep. ???

(New Material)

Estate Robert Lewis {

{

M. Nangan, S. I Peters, & Charles Millard show for cause to the rule taken upon them by the Testamentary Executor of Robert Lewis that the said Robert Lewis has no right or title to the property pretended to be sold as they will be able to show to this court ~ wherefore they pray that said pretended sale may be adjudged to be null and void and these respondents discharged with all their is to deny __ in the ___ of was trained.

L.Lewis

??????
Estate of Robert Lewis { Court of Probates Testimony

Howell Lewis et al. { taken in open Court Jan.

vs. { 11th 1833

Charles A. Jacobs et al. {

H. J. Childress witness for the plaintiffs sworn says that he is from Virginia and is acquainted with the family of Mr. Lewis, the deceased; lived within a mile and a half of them, knew well all his brothers and his mother, his father was dead before his recollection, that he saw Robert Lewis once in this city last winter. Witness resided in Albemarle County, state of Virginia, that he knew well Howell, Zacharia, Daniel and William Lewis. Also knows well Howell Lewis. There were all esteemed and reputed to be the legitimate brothers of the deceased Robert Lewis & were recognized by him as such, Nicholas Lewis now resides in the state of Alabama, Howell Lewis is present in this city & now in the courtroom, he has seen him in company often with the deceased Robert Lewis, there is no general Official Register of Births Deaths and Marriages kept in the State of Virginia, it is however kept by some family but it is not general. He knows of none kept by the family of the deceased, he knows that none of the family of the deceased belong to any particular religious sect.

Cross-examined

He is 36 years of age was born an Albemarle County State of Virginia left there in March 1828 now resides in Mississippi he saw the mother of Robt Lewis last summer, he thinks the decd. left Virginia 1821 or 1822 he is not positive as to the date, upon recollection, it was on the fall 1820, Witness is not married. It is to his knowledge that no one can marry in the state of Virginia without license, it is not legal.

The license is granted by the Clerk of Court but he knows not what Court. Howell Lewis is reputed to be the youngest son, upon recollection he thinks Daniel is the youngest. He thinks the youngest of the family of the boys of the Lewis’s is older than he is, he went to school with Daniel. He was larger than witness at the time, he does not know the age of any of the Lewis family, the witness was about 7 years of age when he went to school with Daniel, at this time William and Zacharia were men grown. William resides in Buckingham County, he does not know when he removed there. There was a brother named John. He does not know whether he is dead are alive, was not so well acquainted with him as he was with the rest of the brothers. Mrs. Lewis resides now in Fluvanna County he does not recollect at what time she removed there, he does not know how often she has been married. He has heard of the family of Meriweather Lewis near Charlottesville, but is not acquainted with him.

John Cumminger witness for the plaintiffs sworn says that he is from Buckingham County state of Virginia. Knew well Howell Lewis in Virginia he is now present in court, knew well the deceased Robert Lewis worked for him in this place Knew him before he came to this state, Knew also Sarah Lewis got acquainted with about 6 young ago. Howell Lewis & the deceased always passed for the legitimate sons of Sarah Lewis. Witness was raised from the time he was 9 years of age till he was 18 with Billy Lewis, he knows Daniel and Zacharia Lewis, not acquainted with Nicholas, the deceased always recognized Howell and the others as his brothers. It is generally reputed that the father has been dead for many years.

Cross-examined

He is 26 years of age. has been two years absent from

Virginia now resides in this state. William Lewis had some children about the same age with him when he lived with him. Witness was 12 or 13 years of age when Robert Lewis the deceased came to this State. He was living with William at the time, he does not know at the period he lived with William whether Mrs. Sarah Lewis live in Fluvanna or Albemarle County. He has seen her three or four times had some business with her on one occasion. He does not know whether Mrs. Sarah Lewis has been more than once married. He knows of no other family in Albemarle County of the name out of Lewis, there is two families of that name near the line one in Buckingham and the other in Campbell County. It is to his knowledge no man can get legally married in the State of Virginia without first obtaining a license, some of Mrs. Sarah Lewis’ children were old enough to be his witnesses his father.

Principal examination resumed

He does not know whether there is any Statute in Virginia which requires persons to get a license before marriage are whether it is only a practice, Mrs. Sarah Lewis always passed for a woman of reputable character, and as a married woman, he does not know whether she Mrs. Sarah Lewis was married are not, but she always passed as married. The witness was too young to know any thing about it. He never heard that she had been married more than once.

Plaintiff must? Offer in evidence the envelope of the will of Robert Lewis on file in this court to be taken up in original in case of appeal to the Supreme Court also the Will of said Lewis.

W. S. Turbeville witness for the plaintiffs sworn says on being shewn the envelope of the Will recognizes his signature thereto. That

the first time he saw this document it was in the hands of William Y. Lewis, Esq. Notary Public who delivered it to Robert Lewis in his presence telling him that it was his Will and Lewis acknowledged it to be so, and signed it, that when the notary handed it to Robert Lewis it was folded up he does not know whether it was sealed up or not, and that Robert Lewis did not open it and had no means at that time of knowing the contents of it, the envelope was closed when he the witness signed it in other respects it looks now the same that it did at that time. He thinks there was something written on the envelope before he signed it, but is not positive, he knows that Robert Lewis had signed it before he did.

Cross-examined

It was either in a Thursday or Friday, he does not recollect which, that he was called upon to sign the Act, it was some two or three days before the death of Lewis. He died on the Sunday night following the day on which he signed it, it was a little after midday when he was called upon. he does not recollect the precise time; Lewis was lying sick on his bed. the notary was there and the other witnesses he does not recollect who else was present in the Room. That he saw Robert Lewis hand the package to Mr. W.Y. Lewis the Notary after he had signed it and heard him acknowledge it to be his Will, he thinks that Mr. Jacobs did seal the package in the presence of himself & the other witnesses but cannot state it positively, thinks he does and recollect to have.

Question: did you are do you recollect to have seen Mr. Robert Lewis sign his name to the Will before it was closed up in the envelope.

Answer: I do not recollect having seen him sign it.

He thinks Mr. Lewis requested Mr. Jacobs to seal the Will

Principal examination

He did not see any Seal used when he says the package was Sealed by Mr. Jacobs he means to infer that it was closed up with wafer.

Cross-examined

He does not recollect seeing Mr. Jacobs press the wafer with his finger when he closed the package, the witness was not paying attention to it at all.

Mr. E. Lasere witness for the Plaintiffs sworn says on being shewn the envelope of the Will recognizes his signature thereto. When he witness entered the room the will or the package was in the hands of the deceased Robert Lewis who handed it over in his presence to W^m. Y. Lewis the Notary declaring it to be his Will, witness had been called upon the day previous & the package was then in the hands of W^m. Y. Lewis the Notary. He believes the package was in the same state when he first saw it that it was in the second day that he saw it, he signed it in the second day, he does not know the reason why he did not sign on the first day, but he thinks the persons there said there was some mistake and it, he was sent for both times by Mr. Jacobs. He does not recollect how many persons were in the room when he signed it but all the subscribing witnesses to the envelope were present when the deceased signed it. Mr. Marcelly one of the subscribing witness is dead. (When he came into the room were Robert Lewis was sick he found all the other witnesses assembled there. Witness remained only two or three minutes in the Room after

signing the envelope. He does not remember that anything was done in the room while he staid therefore after signing it, witness on going to the house, went first in the yard. Then repaired to the room where he found the package in the hands of the Deceased who declared it to be his Will and signed it. witness went off immediately after he had signed it. Two or three of the witnesses had signed before he did. he does not recollect to have seen the other witnesses sign nor the Notary.

Cross-examined

On the first day that he was called to the house of Robert Lewis he went into the Room where he was lying sick. He there found Mr. Turbeville, Mr. Jacobs, Mr. Pritchard, and Mr. W.Y. Lewis the Notary. He did not examine the package in the hands of Mr. W^m.Y. Lewis the notary & cannot say whether it was closed or not, he does not know whether was a Will or blank piece of paper. All the witnesses were present on the second day when Robt Lewis handed the will to Will^m Y. Lewis the Notary declaring it to be his Will. He saw the deceased sign his name on the envelope. all the witnesses were present when he signed it, he knows from his own a personal knowledge that all the subscribing witnesses on the envelope were present when the deceased signed it & when he handed it to the Notary declaring it to be his Will. he witness might or could have seen the other witnesses signed if he had paid attention to it. He remained in the room one or two minutes after he had signed. He cannot tell whether the witnesses had done signing when he left the room. That after he had signed he left the room thinking that he had nothing further to do there.

Principal examination

Nothing was read to witness previous to his signing. That he read nothing himself before signing.

Question: What words did the Testator use when he declared the paper to be his Will?

Answer: W^m.Y. Lewis the Notary told him that it was his Will and he answered: Yes it is.

Question. Was anything read to the Testator before he signed?

Answer: No.

He is positive when the testator acknowledged the paper to be his Will that he made use of no other words then the following, Yes, it is my Will.

Robert Lewis was very weak when witness was there in the first day he thinks in about the same situation that he was in the second day.

Cross-examined

That W^m.Y. Lewis told the Testator that it was his will he answered yes it is my will.

Question: Did you hear the deceased ask notary if it was his will?

Answer: the notary told him this is your Will. He answered yes it is my will.

The native language of the witness is French.

Question: What words did the notary make use of when he told the Testator, this is your will?

Answer: Mr. Lewis this is your Will.

The notary did not explain to Witness the purpose of the Act he signed, he recollects distinctly that he did not,

The State of Louisiana

to the sheriff of the Parish of New Orleans

Greetings

We command you that you distrain J. B. D. Casanabe by all his goods and chattels lands & tenements in your Parish until he shall pay and satisfy the sum of Eight hundred dollars with legal interest thereon from the 15th day of March 1833 until paid and costs of suit being the amount of a certain final judgment rendered by the Supreme Court of Louisiana in the matter of the succession of Robert Lewis where in the Testamentary Executor of said Lewis was appellent and the said J. B. D. Casanabe was appellee & which judgment was rendered upon an appeal from the judgment of the Court of Probates in and for the City and Parish of New Orleans rendered on the 16th day of Decr. 1833 and signed on the 31st of the same month, in the same matter, and what you shall have done in this respect you return to our Said Court of Probates on the 1st monday of September next, and have you thus there this writ.

Witness the Honourable Charles Maurian

Judge of our said court this 21st day of

August In the year of our Lord One Thousand eight

Hundred and thirty four of the 59th of the Indepen-

dence of the United States of America

?? Hoffman

Dep. Rg. Of Wills

Estate of Robert Lewis {

on a rule to set aside {Court of Probates

homologation of account {21 August 1833

The counsel for the heirs of Robert Lewis introduced in evidence the following documents and papers.....

1. The judgment rendered by this Court and signed on the 3 April 1833 in the case of Howell Lewis et al vs. Charles A. Jacobs No. 661 of the docket.

2. The mandate of the Supreme Court affirming the above judgment filed in this court on the 3rd June last.

3. The rule entered on the minutes of the court on the 3rd June taken by John Slidell Esq. and C.A. Jacobs to to file his account.

4. The inventory on file in the matter of the succession of Robert Lewis.

The account voucher and documents filed by C. A. Jacobs on the 31st of July last past.

State of Tennessee

Executive Department

I, William Carroll, governor in an over the said state, do hereby certify that Alpha Kingsley whose signature is annexed to the foregoing certificate, is now, and was on the day of the date thereof, Notary Public for the county of Davidson in the said state, and that his official acts as such are entitled to full faith and credit; and that said certificate is in due form of law.

In Testimony Whereof, I have hereunto set my hand and caused the great seal of the state to be affixed, at Nashville, the 27th day of January 1834.

William Carroll

By the Governor

_____ G. Smith

Secretary

Be it known to all whom it may concern that I, Sarah P. Davis of the State of Tennessee and County of Wilson, wife of John Davis of the State and County aforesaid, and sister of Robert Lewis, late of the City of New Orleans and State of Louisiana, deceased, being here unto specially authorized and by virtue of these presents by my said husband, do by these presents make constitute an appoint Harden L. Tillman of __________ in the State of Louisiana my true and lawful attorney for me and in my name, to act, demand, sue for and receive from all and every person or persons whomsoever in Louisiana, all sums of money, debts & demands which may now be due or owing to me as one of the heirs of the said Robert Lewis deceased or what as such heir I may be in any wise entitled to now are hereafter, and especially to ask, demand, sue for and receive from the legally constituted authorities and from all persons whomsoever such portion of the estate of my said brother as I may be in any ??? entitled to. To accept for me the Succession of the said Robert Lewis and to take possession of the same and to act and do for me as such him in all matters appertaining to my interest as he may deem right and proper. To appear for me and in my name, as such him in all courts of practice on the State of Louisiana, as plaintiff or defendant, and in all matters or proceedings held or had under the authority of said courts and to prosecute or defend any action or actions suit or suits that now are or hereafter may be instituted for or against me, as such him, specially authorizing him to ask all or any part of the interest I may have as such him in or to the property devolving upon me from the succession of the said Robert Lewis, and to hypothecate the same or any part thereof, to compromise, transact, arbitrate and compound in everything relating to said succession and to represent me in the petition of the same. To grant acquittances and discharges for all or any of the purposes hereinbefore mentioned and generally to do all other acts and things

whatsoever for me ________ in my aforesaid capacity concerning finances, as fully as if I were personally present, and I do also authorize him to substitute one or more attorneys under him with the like or more similar powers and the same at pleasure to work and to substitute as other are others from time to time and as often as he shall see occasion. And I do hereby ratify and confirm and covenant and agree to ratify and confirm whatsoever my said attorney or his substitute or substitutes shall lawfully do our cause to be done by virtue of these presents. In witness whereof I have hereunto set my hand and seal at Nashville this 27 day of January in the year One thousand eight hundred and thirty four.

ach'd John Davis

ach'd Sarah P. Davis

Witnesses Present

L.B. Christy

J.W. Button

The United States of America

State of Tennessee, Davidson County.

To all whom it may or doth concern, Be it known that on the day and date thereof, personally came and appeared before me one Alpha Kingsley, Notary Public for the County of Davidson in the State of Tennessee duly commissioned and sworn according to law and residing in the City of Nashville in said county, John Davis and Sarah Davis, whose names are signed to the above power of attorney and acknowledged the execution thereof before the subscribing witnesses: L. B. Christy and J. W. Button in my presence, and I do further certify that previous to said execution and acknowledgement that I questioned the said Sara Davis apart from her husband, and she stated that she signed, sealed, executed, and acknowledge to said Power of her own free will and accord without fear or dread of her husband or any other person.

In listening whereof I have here unto set my hand and affixed my seal of office this 27th day of January A.D. 1834-

Alpha Kingsley

Notary Public

New Orleans 23 Nov. 1833

Dear Mother

The appinte? Power of attorney is in form as the law directs for this state. It has to be signed by Mr. Davis as well as yourself, the other power of attorney not being in form. Consequently it is of no use and as all parties are very anxious to have the property belonging to the estate sold you _____ ______ and the power of attorney as soon as possible. Uncle Howell has just arrived and says all of our relations are very well in Virginia and that Grandmar?/Grandson? is in very fine health.

The following explanation in what way the opposite? power of attorney should be authenticated.

Viz.

First blank fill up with Mr. Davis’ first name and the second blank must be fill’d with my name. All the filling up and signatures must be done before the Judge of some Court having a Seal with the attestation of the clerk and the certificate of the Judge according to the provisions of the act of Congress on the authentication of ____ or if there be a notary public who can ???ive the acknowledgement it might be made before him in the presence of his witnesses - and the commission of a notary should be certified under the Seal of the State . The above is all of the necessary directions. enclose the power of attorney in a separate covering and direct it to me.

I am your affectionate son

Harden S. Tilghman

Know All Men by These Presents That I Sarah Price Bumpass, Now the Wife of Edward Franklin Bumpass, Late the Widow and Relict of Whitfield Wilson Rogers, deceased and formally Sarah Price Lewis, & now a citizen of Giles County and State of Tennessee, being the daughter of Harden Perkins Lewis who is as brother Robert Lewis late of the city of New Orleans, deceased, have this day nominated, constituted, appointed, ordained and authorized and do now by these presents make, ordained, nominate, constituted, appointed, ordained, and authorized the said Edward Franklin Bumpass my said husband, now a citizen of Giles County, Tennessee to be my true, lawful, and special attorney in fact with full power & authority to act for and to represent me and all things whatever connected with the settlement of the estate of the said Robert Lewis, deceased, in which I the said Sarah Price Bumpass shall or may be interested, and to this end to sue and be sued, plead and be impleaded in my name or otherwise, to compound and to settle all and every kind of dispute which may arise in the said settlement by arbitration, suit, or otherwise to receive & take into his possession for me all my share or portion of the estate of the said Robert Lewis, deceased, whether lands, Negroes or money or other property or thing of value whatever to enter into any partition of property, credits & to give all the necessary receipts and discharges to others who may be concerned in the said Estate or in the settlement thereof to receive for me all sum, or sums of money, property, rights & credits of every kind which may be coming to me from the said the estate & generally to do all lawful acts and things whatsoever concerning the premises as fully in every respect as I myself might or could do if I were personally present and an attorney or attorneys under him for the purposes aforesaid to make and at his pleasure to revoke, hereby ratifying, allowing and confirming all and whatsoever my said attorney shall in my name legally do, our cause to be done in and about the premises by virtue of this letter of attorney.

In witness whereof, I the said Sarah Price Bumpass have this day fixed my hand and seal to this power of attorney on this the second day of November in the year of our Lord one thousand, eight hundred and thirty seven.

Sarah Price Bumpass (Seal)

State of Tennessee

Giles County

Personally appeared before me Edward D. Jones??? Clerk of County Courts of said County, the within named Mrs Sarah Price Bumpass, privately and apart from her Husband Edward Franklin Bumpass, and acknowledged the execution of the within Power of Attorney to have been done by her freely, voluntarily, and understandingly, without compulsion or restraint from her said husband, and for the purposes thereon expressed.

In testimony whereof I have here unto set my hand and affixed the Seal of said Court of the Clerk's Office in the Town of Pulaski This 2nd Day of November A.D. 1837

E. D. Jones, Clerk

State of Tennessee

Giles County

I Alexander Black Chairman of the County Courts of said Giles County, Hereby certify that Edward D. Jones whose signature is affixed to the foregoing certificate was when he signed the same, and still is, Clerk of the County Courts of said County of Giles, duly elected and sworn for that purpose, that his certificate is in due form of law, and that full faith and credit are due to and should be given to all his official acts and attestations as such clerk.

In witness whereof I have here unto set my hand and seal officially this 2nd day of November A.D. 1834.

Alexander Black presiding

Justice of Giles County Courts

Estate of Robert Lewis

Howell Lewis, attorney { Court of Probates

vs. {

C. A. Jacobs, attorney {

John Slidell attorney for the plaintiffs in this case being duly sworn says that Nathaniel D. Goolsby who is in this city, is a material witness on the behalf of the plaintiffs. that said Nathaniel B. Goolsby is about to defend for the state what ____ that they may be (apprised of the relationship?) dep____ of the ____ ____tess which they expect to derive from the _____ of aid of what for these reasons he wishes to obtain from this court a commission directing the deposition of said Nathaniel P. Goolsby to be taken by any judge or justice of New Orleans.

John Slidell

attorney for plaintiff

Sworn to the subscribed

before me, New Orleans,

December 15th 1837

Martin Black__

Court of Probates

State of Louisiana

Estate of Robt. Lewis

Heirs of Lewis

C.A. Jacobs [named executor by Robt. Lewis] & others

Testimony taken at New Orleans on the twentieth day of December 1832 at the offices of John Slidell Esq. in pursuance of the annexed commission and notice and in the presence of C.A. Jacobs & his counsel G. Schmidt, Esq, Nicholas Lewis, Hardin Tilghman, and Lucius C. Duncan Esq. counsel to the Boys Orphan Asylum,

Nathaniel D. Goolsby being duly sworn dictates as follows:

I am a native of Albemarle County in Virginia and have resided there all my life. I was acquainted with Robert Lewis, who died this summer in New Orleans. I have known him twenty odd years. He was the son of Owen Lewis and Sarah Lewis of Albemarle County in Virginia, where he was born.

Robert Lewis left that county about twelve years ago as near as I can remember.

Owen Lewis & Sarah Lewis his parents had I think nine children. William I think was the oldest. Zachariah the next, Sarah the next, who first married Jacob Tilghman (crossed through) Tilman and since his death she is married to John Davis. Hardin P. Lewis is next, Nicholas the next, then John, then Robert, next Howell, and then Daniel P. Lewis.[According to John's gravestone and the information in documents related to probate which state that Robert was 47 y.o. at his death, I think Nathaniel reversed the birth order of John and Robert.]

Owen Lewis the Father has been dead about twenty years or more.

William Lewis resides in Buckingham County Virginia. Zacharaiah and Howell reside in Albemarle County, V^a. Daniel P. Lewis in Fluvanna County, Virginia - Sarah now Davis - resides, I believe in Tennessee--

Hardin P. Lewis died in Alabama leaving four children - Nicholas Lewis who is now here present at this examination resides in Alabama - John lived in South Carolina where he died, I understand, leaving four or five children.

In Virginia there is no public or official Register of births or deaths - or marriages -

I was born and raised within a mile & a half of the family of Lewis', & knew them all as well as I know any one. The children I have mentioned were always reputed and considered the legitimate children of the said Owen and Sarah, born in lawful wedlock and are consequently brothers & sisters of the full blood of Robert Lewis, lately deceased.

Cross examination on behalf of executor:

I am thirty-eight years of age. I was born & resided near Warren on the James River - Owen Lewis & his family lived about a mile & half from my home. I became acquainted with the family at a very early age, probably at seven or eight years. (I went to school with the children. William Lewis is probably about twenty years older than I am. ~~When~~ I cannot say when he moved to Buckingham. I first knew him in Albemarle County. I saw him about three months ago. He has a family. Zachariah has a family - Sarah married in Albemarle County. I cannot recollect the period - it is at least twenty four or twenty five years - I visited her family - I think when I saw her she was living near the border of

Fluvanna. Hardin P. Lewis moved to Alabama. I do not recollect the period. I heard of his death from a boy whom I took to be his son. I think Hardin was once a (brick layer/agent?) but I cannot say. Nicholas is now here. John went to South Carolina. I cannot recollect when. I have heard of his being dead for several years, but only know of it from hearing so. Howell is now present at this examination. Daniel lives in Fluvanna with his mother. I am a farmer near Warren, Albemarle. I was on an intimate footing with old Mr. Lewis' family. I have known them all my life. It is now about fifteen years or upward since Mrs. Sarah Lewis removed to Fluvanna. It was after Old Mr. Lewis’ death. She lives near the lower edge of Fluvanna County near Columbia. I was there during two or three days about five years ago. I do not visit the neighboring counties very often. I am occupied at home.

Some times it is customary then for private individuals to keep a register of births and deaths in their family but it is not general. I do not know that Mr. Lewis kept any. They did not belong to any particular religious sect.

I do not believe that any of the children were baptism (??) - I think the youngest, Daniel, is about thirty five years.

Cross examination on behalf of orphan's asylum:

I came to this place on a visit & as company for Howell Lewis. I have a family at home. My expenses are not paid by Lewis' heirs. I am going home as soon as I can get a resail? - I have been trying to get off these two or three days. I have no interest in this suit at all.

Nathaniel D. Goolsby

??? & witnessed ?? Mathews

this 17^th day of November 1832

before me P.K. Smits, Judge

The Counsel for the executor reserved to himself all legal exceptions to the above.

P.K. Smits, Judge

I, P.F. Smith associate Judge of the City Court of New Orleans certify that the above testimony was taken before me in pursuance of the annexed commission and notice – at the office of John Slidell Esq. In rear? Of the Custom House – at ½ part ??? ½ no. on the 17^th. Day of Dec. 1832 That the witness was by me Duly Sworn & examined. that I reduced his deposition to writing and he signed it in my presence. & that the costs are Eight dollars & twenty five cents paid.

G. ???

Fees -Dep. $6.25

March ?? serving & noticve 2.00

$8.25

P.K. Smith aforesaid Judge

of the Court of New Orleans

I. State of Louisiana

Parish of Orleans

(recorder of births in deaths office, )

The at remembered that on this day to wit: the first of December in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-two and be fifty-seventh of the independence of the United States of America, before me Vincent Ramos, duly commissioned and sworn recorder of births in deaths in and for the parish of Orleans, personally appeared Francois Lattemand, aged 28 years, book printer, residing in this city, Orleans Street, between Bourbon and Dauphine streets, who by these presents does declare that George Lemaire, aged 33 years, native of Paris France, died on the 31 October last it 8:00 P.M. in the house of the deponent.

This done that New Orleans in the presence of the aforesaid Francois Lattemand as also in that of Mssrs. Rufine Fernandez and Clement Barnard both of the city witnesses by the requested so to be, who have here unto set their hands together with me after do reading hero, the day, month and year first above written, Francois Lattemand, Rufine Fernandez, Clement Barnard.

I do hereby certify the foregoing to be a true and faithful copy from the original duly recorded in books,, B. Jogg

In testimony whereof I have set my hand and affixed the seal my office at the city of New Orleans, this first day of December in the year 1832 and be 57th of independence of the United States of America.

Vincent Ramos

recorder of births in deaths

(I think this is mistakenly inserted among Lewis Papers) Estate of Robert Lewis { Court of probates

on a rule to set aside and { 21 August 1833

homologation of account {

The council for the air as of Robert Lewis introduce in existence the following documents and papers.

1. The judgment rendered by this court signed on the three April 1833 in the case of Howell Lewis et al vs. Charles A. Jacobs No. 661 of the docket.

2. The mandate of the Supreme Court of firming the above judgment filed in this court on the third June last.

3. The rule entered in the minutes of this court on the third June taken by John Slidell Esq. on C. A. Jacobs to file his account.

4. The inventory on file in the matter of this succession of Robert Lewis.

5. The account vouchers and documents filed by C. H. Jacobs on the 31st of July last past.

Estate of Robert Lewis { Court Of Probates

on a rule to set aside { 21 August 1833

Homologation of account {

The council for the heirs of Robert Lewis introduce in existence the following documents and papers :

The judgment rendered by this County signed on the three April 1833 in the case of Howell Lewis & als vs. Charles A. Jacobs No. 661 of the docket
the mandate of the Supreme Court of firming the above judgment filed in this court on the third June last
the rule entered on the minutes of this court on the third June taken by John Slidell Esq. on C. A. Jacobs, to file his account
the inventory on file in the matter of the succession of Robert Lewis
the account voucher and documents filed by C. A. Jacobs on the 31st July last past

STATE OF TENNESSEE,{

Executive Department. {

I, William Carroll, governor in an over the said state, do hereby certify that Alpha Kingsley whose signature is annexed to the foregoing certificate is now, and was on the day of the date thereof, Notary Public for the County of Davidson in the said state, and that his official acts as such are entitled to full faith and credit; and that said certificate is in due form of law.

In Testimony Whereof, I have here unto set my hand and caused the great seal the state to be affixed, at Nashville, the 27th day of January 1834.

Wm Carroll

By the Governor

Thomas G. Smith

Secretary

The State of Louisiana (Opened in 1832)

Parish in City of New Orleans

Succession

Robert Lewis

Be it remembered that on this 29th day of August in the year of our Lorde one thousand eight hundred thirty-five and the Sixtieth of The Independence Of The United States Of America

By virtue of and in obedience to an Order issued by the Honorable the Court of Probates in and for the parish in City of New Orleans State of Louisiana hearing? date the Sixth day of January, One thousand eight hundred thirty-five, and rendered in the suit entitled "Charles A. Jacobs and William M. Lambeth, assignees of certain heirs of Robert Lewis vs. Sarah P. Davis & other heirs of said Robert Lewis deceased," as, also by virtue of a family meeting of the minor Heirs of the late Robert Lewis deceased, duly held before A. Mazurean Esq., Not. Pub. on the nineteenth day of December Eighteen hundred and thirty four, whose deliberations have been duly homologated by the aforesaid Court of Probates on the Sixth day of January, One thousand eight hundred thirty-five and the advertisements and publications required by the Act entitled "and act relative to Publications and Advertisements required by law in the Parish and City of New Orleans, and for other purposes" approved ninth March 1835 having been made in two of the Newspapers published in the City of New Orleans to wit: in the "Bulletin" on the 27th, 28th and 31st days on July 1835 and on the 4th 8th 12th 15th 20th 25 in 29th days of August 1835 in the English language. And in the "Bee" on the 28th 29 at 30 and 31st days of July 1835, and on the 4th 10th 13th 15th 22nd 24th and 26 days of August 1835 in the French language, I William F. C. Duplessis, Register Of Wills in and for the parish in City of New Orleans aforesaid, did at the hour of Twelve o’clock at noon, repair to the New Exchange Coffee House, corner of Chartres and St. Louis Streets, and then and there, after having first read in a loud and distinct voice, the terms and conditions hereinafter expressed and specified did expose for sale at public auction for account of the Succession of the aforesaid deceased Robert Lewis the following described slaves which were adjudicated to the last and highest bidders:

1st. Peter a mulatto man aged about thirty-five years, title only guaranteed adjudicated to Charles A. Jacobs for the price of Five hundred and fifty dollars `$550

Amount carried over $550.00

2nd. James a negro man aged about thirty years, title only guaranteed, adjudicated to Hardin L Tilghman, for the price of Three hundred and eighty dollars $380.00

Amount of Sale $930.00

Terms of sale Six, Twelve, Eighteen and Twenty four months credit for approved endorsed notes secured by special mortgage.

Viz. The acts of sale to be processed before A. Mazurean Esq. Notary Public, at the expense of the Purchasers.

From the certificate of the recorder of mortgages in and for the parish and city of New Orleans, bearing even date herewith and hereunto annexed for reference, it appears that there is no mortgages standing in the name of Robert Lewis and recorded against the above described slaves.

And there being no other property to be offered for sale this day for account of the Succession of the aforenamed deceased Robert Lewis, the present Prices verbal of Sale amounting to the Sum of Nine hundred thirty dollars was by me the Register of Wills aforesaid, closed and signed the day month and year first before written,

Two words erased.

W.F.C. Duplessis

OFFICE OF MORTGAGES

The undersigned, RECORDER OF MORTGAGES, for the Parish And City Of NEW-ORLEANS, State of Louisiana, Certifies, That, in the records in his office, there is no mortgage standing in the name of Robert Lewis and recorded against the following slaves to wit: Peter, aged thirty-five years and James thirty years.

New Orleans August the twenty ninth 1835.

P.Lamreang

Rec

[Stamp with State of Louisiana

Office of Mortgages and an eagle]
Be in knowing that on the twenty-seventh day of January eighteen hundred and thirty four and in the fifty-eighth year of the American independence ___________, _______________, _____________________

In compliance with an order issued from the Honorable the Court of Probates in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans & rendered on the 30th day of November 1833, on a petition presented to the said Honorable Court by John Slidell Esq. as attorney for Howell Lewis & Zachariah Lewis residing in Albemarle County, for William Lewis residing in Buckingham County and for Daniel P. Lewis residing in Fluvanna County, all brothers of the full blood of Robert Lewis, late of New Orleans deceased and also for Sarah Lewis, residing in Fluvanna County, mother of said Robert Lewis all residents of the State of Virginia, the said petition, shewing that the parties aforementioned with Nicholas Lewis, residing in the State of Alabama, Sarah P. Lewis also residing in the same State and there married to John Davis, the brother and sister of the said Robert Lewis. Meriwether Lewis and James Owen Lewis, minor children of Hardin P. Lewis deceased, who was also brother of Robert Lewis, and of whom the said Nicholas Lewis is guardian or testor?, Sarah Lewis and Emiline Lewis, both Daughters of the said Hardin P. Lewis, the former married to _______ Rogers & residing in _________ County, State of Alabama, the latter married to _______ Walker, residing in the Territory of Arkansas, and Sarah Ann Lewis, Daniel B. Lewis, Robert N. Lewis and William J. Lewis, minor children of John Lewis deceased, by his wife Elizabeth, the said John Lewis also having been the brother of said Robert Lewis the

minors having for guardian under the the laws of South Carolina, Thomas McMeekin, who had intermarried with said Elizabeth the natural Executrix? of said children. The said parties all residing in Union District, State of South Carolina, are the sole and legal heirs of the said Robert Lewis who died as? intestate on or about the twenty sixth day of August eighteen hundred and thirty two whose Succession is opened in the Parish of New Orleans. That one Charles A. Jacobs acting as executor of certain alleged testamentary dispositions of the said Robert Lewis, took possession of the property of his Succession and administered thereon and sold a considerable portion thereof. That a suit was initiated before the Honorable the Court of Probates by several of the aforesaid heirs, alleging the nullity of the Will of said Robert Lewis which had been admitted to Probate on the petition of said Jacobs, that said Will by a final judgment of the said Court of Probates affirmed on appeal by the Supreme Court, was declared null and void and said Jacobs was ordered to fix? an account of his administration. That, in compliance with said judgment, the said Jacobs did render an account of his administration, which he had after due proceedings having been homologated ___ and being that considerable balance due by him to the said descendents that there also remains undisposed of, several of valuable lots of ground and other property belonging to said Succession, together with audits which have never been collected by said Executor, & that an Inventory of the property belong to the Succession of the said Robert Lewis deceased, be made in due form of law; Whereupon was rendered the aforesaid order of the court, directing me, Notary, to take an inventory of all the property now belonging to the said Succession in the presence of all the parties interested or those duly called; of which said order of the court and petition a duly certified copy is and remains hereto annexed for assurance _____, ____, _____.

In consequence whereof, I, Adolph Mazurean Notary Public in and for the parish in City of New Orleans & duly

commissioned and sworn and in the presence _______, ______________. __________________________

1st. Of Ms Gustson d’ Hóbécourt and Christoval C. Morel, both witnesses and of lawful age, residing in this city of New Orleans, ________________, ___________________.

2nd. Of Mssrs. Harvey Elkins and Nathaniel Cox Of this city, by the aforesaid order of the court duly appointed experts to value the property hereinafter inventoried and now belonging to the Succession of the said Robert Lewis deceased,____,_______, _______.

3rd. Of Mr. Howell Lewis of Albemarle County, now in this city of New Orleans, brother of the full blood of the said Robert Lewis deceased, and as heir of the same, entitled to three thirty-second parts of the Succession of the said Robert Lewis;

4th. Of John Slidell Esq. of this city, attorney for and representing Zachariah Lewis of Albemarle County, William Lewis residing in Buckingham County, Daniel P. Lewis residing in Fluvanna County, brothers of the full blood of the said late Robert Lewis, legal heirs of the same and entitled as said to three thirty-second parts of the succession of the deceased Robert Lewis; and Sarah Lewis, mother of the said Robert Lewis and entitled as such to one-fourth part of the said Succession; all the said parties being residents of the State of Virginia;

5th. Of Stephen Mazurean, Esq. of this city, attorney for and representing, first: Nicholas Lewis, residing in the State of Alabama, brother of the said Robert Lewis deceased, and entitled to three thirty-second parts of his Succession & guardian or Testor? of Meriwether Lewis & James? Owen Lewis, minor children of Hardin P. Lewis, deceased who was also brother of Robert Lewis; said minor children being entitled to their thirty-second parts of the said succession decreed: Thomas McMeekin, of Union District, State of South Carolina, who has intermarried with Mrs. Elizabeth

Widow of John Lewis, deceased, who had been the brother of the said Robert Lewis, the said Thomas McMeekin being guardian, under the laws of South Carolina, of Sarah Ann Lewis, Daniel B. Lewis, Robert N. Lewis and William J. Lewis, minor children of the said John Lewis, deceased, by his said wife Elizabeth, said minor children being entitled to their thirty-second parts of the said succession; Third: _ and further Elizabeth, widow of John Lewis and wife of the said Thomas McMeekin, the natural Executrix of her said minor children Sarah Ann Lewis, Daniel B. Lewis, Robert N. Lewis, and William J. Lewis. ____________________

6th. Of Jean Jacques Mercier, Esq., of this city, by the affidavit order of the court duly appointed curator ad hoc of Mistress Sarah Lewis, wife of _________ Rogers, residing in the State of Alabama, and of Emeline Lewis, wife of ____________ Walker & residing also in the State of Alabama, both daughters of said Hardin P. Lewis deceased, who was the brother of the said Robert Lewis, and entitled each to their thirty-second parts of the whole Succession in of the said deceased brother; both being absent and not represented in that state; ___________________

7th. And of Hardin L. Tilghman, of this city, by the aforesaid order of the court duly appointed Curator ad hoc of Mistress Sarah P. Lewis, his mother; wife of John Davis, residing in the State of Alabama, sister of the said Robert Lewis, deceased, and entitled to three thirty-second parts of the whole of said Succession; the said Sarah P. Lewis being also absent and not represented in this state;

Did proceed to the Inventory of all and singular the property now belonging to the Succession of the said Robert Lewis, deceased, in the following manner, to wit,:__________________________

Landed property:

One lot of ground situated on Poydras Street.

Whereon the dwelling House of the deceased Robert Lewis is built, with all the improvements consisting of a one story frame house in front and the two-story back brick building and kitchen in the rear built also of brick, running back to the dividing wall of the brick warehouse & the said brick building with a four foot alley on each side of the dwelling from Poydras Street - and another lot of ground with its buildings situated at & forming the North East corner of Poydras Street and the intended Basin of the Canal Gravier; said two lots of ground measuring altogether one hundred and thirteen feet front, (French measure) on Poydras Street, by one hundred & seventy feet feet on the said intended Basin of the Canal Gravier or Barrone Street; being the same which had been purchased by the deceased Robert Lewis, of Joseph Sanchez, as by an Act executed before G. R. Stringer, Notary, on the twenty-fifth day of November eighteen hundred & twenty five; and the said experts Barry Elkins and Nathaniel Cox being called upon to value the said whole lot of ground and the buildings

Thereon did hereby say and declare that they value the same at the sum of twenty-one thousand dollars.......

One lot of ground situated in the suburb Lafayette, designated in the plan thereof by the letter L, and being on the Bottom, measuring sixty feet front on Levee Street, running thence back to the river; bounded on each side by lot Marked M. and on the other side by lot marked K acquired by purchase from Philip V. Humblet, as for and before G. R. Stringer Notary of the______________ day of ______ eighteen hundred and ___________; the same being valued by the experts at the sum of four thousand dollars.............

Five lots of ground situate in the Nuns’ Suburb, Parish of Jefferson, in the square formed by Felicité, St. Amand, St. Mary and Bellegarde Streets, designated by numbers six, eleven, thirteen, fourteen, and sixteen, in square number Eight B. Lot numbers six measures forty-eight feet two inches front on Felicité Street, by one hundred twenty-five feet depth; Lot number seven measuring forty-eight feet two inches front on Felicité road, by one hundred twenty feet deep; lot number thirteen measuring fifty feet front on St. Mary

Amount carried over...............................

$21,000.

$4000.

______

$25,000.

Amount brought over ......................................

Street, by one hundred twenty feet deep; Lot number fourteen measuring fifty feet front on St. Mary Street by one hundred & twenty feet deep; Lot number sixteen measuring fifty feet front on St. Mary Street by one hundred and twenty feet deep; the whole french measure; acquired by purchase of Lucien Guillame Hiligsberg, as per act in the office of Theodore Seghers, Notary, of the twenty-fifth day of January Eighteen hundred and thirty-two, valued by the said experts, at the sum of five thousand dollars......................

One lot, together with the buildings thereon, situate on Gravier Street in the suburb St. Mary in square bounded by Gravier, Camp, Common, and Magazine Streets, measuring one hundred feet nine inches front on Gravier Street, one hundred and two feet four inches front on the side next to Camp Street, ninety-six feet front in the back next to Common Street & ninety-seven feet nine inches on the side next to Magazine Street; said property belonging to the Estate of the said late

Amount carried over..............................................

$25,000.

$5000.

$30,000.

Amount brought over...............................

Robert Lewis, by purchase made of W. Nott & al, as per act before G. R. Stringer, Notary, dated the Seventeenth day of December Eighteen hundred and twenty-seven; valued by the experts at the sum of twenty five thousand dollars..............

Those lots of ground situate in the square formed by Girod, Camp, Lafayette and St. Mary Streets, in Suburb St. Mary, designated by Numbers Seven, Eight, and Nine, to wit: Lot number seven being a corner lot measuring twenty feet front on Camp Street, by eighty-seven feet deep and front on Girod Street, the whole English measure; Lot number eight measuring twenty feet front on Camp Street, by eighty-seven feet deep, English measure, Lot Number Nine measuring twenty feet front on Camp Street, by eighty-seven feet deep, english measure; These three lots are entitled to the use in the rear, of an alley of three feet wide; opening on Girod Street; and lot Number Nine is entitled to use an alley of three feet wide in Camp Street; which said three lots of ground are owned jointly by the said deceased Robert

Amount carried over........................................

$30,000

$25,000

$55,000

Amount brought over..........................

Lewis and Jonathan Chase, of the city, and were acquired by these of Edward York by an Act recorded before Louis T. Caire, Notary, Dated the fifth day of March Eighteen hundred and thirty two; the undivided security? thereof belonging to the Succession of the said deceased Robert Lewis, being here valued by the said experts, at the sum of two thousand seven hundred fifty dollars....

Slaves

Peter, a Mulatto man of thirty-two years, valued at the sum of six hundred dollars.........................

James, a Negro man of twenty-seven or twenty-eight years, valued at the sum of five hundred dollars..................

Delsey, a Negro woman of sixteen or seventeen years, valued at the sum of five hundred dollars................

Patsey, a Negro woman of about twenty years, valued at the sum of five hundred dollars…….

Total amount of the property hereby assessed and inventoried...........................

Memorandum. And these are also belonging to said Estate, a number of credits which have never been collected, a part whereof appeared on the books of the said Robert Lewis deceased, and the other part is deposited in the Honorable the Court of Probates.

$55,000.

$2,750.

$600.

$500.

_______

$59,850.

And the aforesaid experts, viz. M^rs. Harry Elkins and Nathaniel Cox did hereby say and declared that an amount of the number of

heirs coming to the Succession of the late Robert Lewis, they believe that the property above inventoried could not be divided in kind and ought to be sold at auction.

And whereas, from the declaration of all the parties concerned, there remains nothing more belonging now to the Estate of the late Robert Lewis, or in which said estate may be interested, to be inventoried, I, the said Notary, have terminated and closed this present Inventory, in presence of the said parties, appraisers, and witnesses who have hereunto set their hands, together with me Notary, at the City of New Orleans, in my office, on the day, month and year first above written. ________, _______, __________-

Signed: G.d'Hóbécourt, Christoval Morel, Nath. Cox, Harry Elkins, Howell Lewis. Jn. Slidell, Mazurean, H.L. Tilghman. J.L. Mercier for absent heirs. A. Mazurean, Not. Pub. _____________,________________.

A true copy of the original. New Orleans, March the twelfth Eighteen hundred and thirty-four.

A. Mazurean

Not. Pub.

Lewis, Robert

(This is oriented at 90 degrees.)

Inventory of Court

of the property belonging

to the estate of

Robert Lewis

Collated

filed April 2 1836

G. Hossman

Dep Probate ____

The State of Louisiana

Parish and City of New Orleans

Court of Probates

Succession

Robert Lewis

Be at remembered that on this tenth day of April in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred thirty-five and the fifty-ninth of the Independence of the United States of America.

By virtue of, and in obedience to an order from the Honorable The Court Of Probates in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans, State of Louisiana, bearing date this sixth day of January, Eighteen hundred and thirty-five, and rendered in the Suit entitled "Charles A. Jacobs and William M. Lambeth; Assignees of certain Heirs of Robert Lewis vs. Sarah P. Davis and other Heirs of said Robert Lewis deceased, as also by virtue of a family meeting of the minor Heirs of the late Robert Lewis deceased, duly held before A. Mazurean, Esqr., Not. Pub., on the nineteenth day of December, eighteen hundred and thirty-four, whose deliberations have been duly homologated by the aforesaid Court of Probates on the Sixth day of January, one thousand eight hundred thirty-five, and the advertise-

ments and Publications required by Law, having been duly made in two of the Newspapers published in the City of New Orleans, to wit, in the "Louisiana Advertiser" on the 9th, 11th, 18th, 23rd, 24th, 26, 28th and 30th days of March 1835, and in the "Bee" on the 9th, 14th, 19th, 25th and 31st days of March 1835; and on the 3rd, and 6th, 7th, and 8th days of April 1835, in the English and French languages, I, William F. C. Duplessis, Register of Wills in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans aforesaid, did, at the hour of twelve o'clock at noon, repair to the New Exchange Coffee House, corner of St. Louis’ & Chartres’ Streets, and then and there after having read in a loud and distinct Voice, the Terms and Conditions hereinafter expressed and specified, did expose for Sale at Auction for interest of the Succession of the aforesaid Robert Lewis deceased; the following described landed Property and Slaves, which were adjudicated to the last and highest Bidders, as follows.

Landed Property

1st. One lot of ground, situate on Poydras Street, whereon the dwelling House of the deceased Robert Lewis is built, with all the Improvements thereon; consisting of a one-story Frame House in front, and the two-story back brick Building and Kitchen in the rear built also of Brick, running back to the dividing Wall of the brick Warehouse, and the said brick Building with the four foot Alley on each side of the dwelling from Poydras

St.: __ And another Lot of Ground with its Buildings, situate at and forming the northeast corner of Poydras Street, and the intended Basin of the Canal Gravier, said two Lots of Ground measuring altogether one hundred and thirteen feet front (French measure) on Poydras Street by one hundred & seventy feet on the said the intended Basin of the Canal Gravier or Barrone Street, being the same which has been purchased by the deceased Robert Lewis of Joseph Sanchez, as by an Act executed before G. R. Stringer, Notary Public on the 25th day of November 1825, adjudicated to William M. Lambeth and Charles A. Jacobs for the price of Twenty

thousand dollars.......

2nd. One lot of ground, situated in Suburb Lafayette, designated on the Plan thereof by the letter L., and being on the Ballure; measuring Sixty feet front on the public Road or Levee Street, running thence back to the river, bounded on one side by Lot marked M., and on the other side by lot marked K., acquired by purchase of Philip Snow Hamblet, as per Act before G. R. Stringer, Notary Public, on the eighth day of December 1828, adjudicated to Hardin L. Tilghman for the price of five thousand dollars.......

3rd. Five lots of ground situated in the Nuns' Suburb, parish of Jefferson, in the Square formed by Felicité Street, St. Amand, St. Mary, & Bellegarde streets, designated by numbers six, seven, thirteen, fourteen, and sixteen in square No. eight B.

Amount carried over.............................

$20,000.

$5000.

$25,000

Amount brought forward

Lot number six measures forty-eight feet two inches front on Felicité Street by one hundred and twenty feet deep.

Lot number seven measures forty-eight feet two inches front on Felicité Road by one hundred and twenty feet deep.

Lot number thirteen measures fifty feet front on St. Mary's Street by one hundred and twenty feet deep.

Lot number fourteen measures fifty feet front on St. Mary’s Street by one hundred and twenty feet deep.

Lot number sixteen measures fifty feet front on St. Mary's Street by one hundred and twenty feet deep, the whole French measure, acquired by purchase of Lucien Guillaume Hiligberg by act _____ ______ before Theodore Seghers, Notary Public, on the 26th January 1832, the aforedescribed five Lots of Ground were adjudicated to Gabriel W. Denton for the price of Five thousand one hundred dollars.

4th. A Lot or Parcel of Ground together with the Warehouse and Buildings thereon, situate in Gravier Street in the Suburb St. Mary, in square bounded by Gravier, Camp, Common, and Magazine Streets, measuring one hundred feet nine inches front on Gravier Street, one hundred and two feet four inches front on the side

Amount carried over

$25,000.

$5,100.

_______

$30,100

Amount brought forward

next to Camp Street, ninety six feet front on the back next to Common Street and ninety-seven feet nine inches on the side next to Magazine Street, acquired by the deceased Robert Lewis from Wm. Nott and Co., per Act before G. R. Stringer, Notary Public, on the 17th day of December 1827, the aforesaid described Lot or Parcel of Ground, together with the Warehouse and Buildings thereon were adjudicated to Samuel Hermann, Senior, for the price of thirty thousand one hundred dollars.

5th. The undivided half of three Lots of Ground, situated in the square formed by Girod, Camp, Lafayette, and St. Mary Streets in Suburb St. Mary, designated by numbers seven, eight, and nine, to wit:

Lot number seven being a corner lot, measuring twenty feet front on Camp Street by eighty-seven feet deep and front on Girod Street (English measure.)

Lot number Eight, measuring twenty feet front on Camp Street by eighty-seven feet deep (English measure.)

Lot number nine, measuring twenty feet front on Camp Street by eighty-seven feet deep (English measure.)

These three Lots are entitled to the use, in the rear, of an Alley, three feet wide, opening on Girod Street and lot number nine is entitled to the use

Amount carried over

$30,100.

$30,100.

________

$60,200.

Amount brought over

of an Alley of three feet wide on Camp Street, these three Lots of Ground or owned jointly by the deceased Robert Lewis, and now or lately by Jonathan Chase of this City and were acquired by them of Edward York by Act before Louis T. Caire, Notary Public, on the 5th March 1832, the undivided half of the old aforesaid described three lots of Ground where adjudicated to William M. Lambeth and Charles A. Jacobs for the price of four thousand six hundred dollars.

~Slaves~

6th. The Slave named Peter, a mulatto man, aged about 35 years, adjudicated to Gabriel W. Denton for the price of six hundred and thirty dollars.

7th. The Slave named James, aged about 30 years, adjudicated to Gabriel W. Denton for the price of seven hundred dollars.

Total amount of Sale

$60,200.

$4600.

630.

$700.

$66,130.00

Terms of Sale

Six, twelve, eighteen and twenty four months Credit for approved endorsed Notes secured by Special Mortgage.

(V. B. The Acts of Sale to be passed before A. Mazurean, Esq., Notary Public, at the expense of the Purchasers.

There are supposed to be objections

to the Titles under which the properties first described, by number one and number two are held, and these objections so for as known or understood by the Sellers are 1^o, with regard to Property number one the following, Pierre Godfroy conveys to John Crocker before C. Pollock, Notary Public, under date of the 13th of October 1818, makes the Conveyance as Tutor for his illegitimate minor children, Raymond, Lucien, Octave and Julia; and secondly with regard to Property, Number two which is situated in what is termed Fauxbourg Lafayette, the claims of the minor Heirs of the late John Poultney, which claims are now and progress of judicial investigation and are believed to consist of informalities in the acts of alienation of the property of the said late John Poultney, which claims are now in progress of Judicial investigation and are believed to consist of informalities in the Acts of alienation of the Property of the said late John Poultney.

The sellers convey and warrant no other Title to Lots, number one and number two, then that which was legally vested in the late Robert Lewis.

The plaintiffs Charles A. Jacobs and William M. Lambeth being Proprietors of certain Shares in this Estate, consent and agree to sell their own interest therein, at the same time and on the same Terms and Conditions as those above described, and which have been prescribed by a family meeting whose deliberations have been duly homologated.

From the Certificate of the Recorder of Mortgages, in and for the Parish and City of New Orleans, bearing even date herewith and hereunto annexed for reference, it appears that in the records in his office, there is no mortgage standing in the name of Robert Lewis, deceased, and recorded against the above

Described and sold landed Property and Slaves.

And from the Certificate of the Parish Judge in and for the Parish of Jefferson and ex officio Recorder of Mortgages therein bearing even date herewith and hereunto annexed for reference, it appears that in the records in his office there is no other mortgage standing in the name of Robert Lewis deceased, except the one, he, the said Robert Lewis granted, by Act before Theodore Seghers, Notary Public, for the City of New Orleans, dated January 26th, 1832, on the five described Lots of Ground, situated in the Nuns' Suburb in favor of his Vendor, Lucien Guillaume Hiligsberg of the Parish of St. Bernard to the payment of his three several promissory Notes of even date with said Act to the order of said Seller, each for two thousand two hundred and forty dollars, which said Notes countes ?? ???????????? by the said notary are made payable at one,two, and three years after date.

And there being no other Property to be offered for Sale this day for account of the Succession of the aforesaid Robert Lewis deceased the present process verbal of Sale, amounting to the Total Sum of Sixty-six thousand one hundred and thirty dollars was by me the Register of wills aforesaid, closed and signed, the day month and year first before written.

W.F.C. Duplessis

Supreme Court of the State of Louisiana

Monday, May 5th 1834

The Court met.

Presents the Honorable George Matthews

the Honorable S. X. Martin

the Honorable William A. Bullard

Succession of Robert Lewis {

Testary executor , appt. { Appeal from the Court of

Vs. { probates of New Orleans

Casenance appellee {

In this case the court this

day delivered their opinion in writing in the

words and figures following;viz.:

This is a proceeding instituted by the Executor and now carried on by the heirs of Robert Lewis to compel the defendants to comply with the terms of sale of the certain slave sold by order of the Court of Probates as belonging to the Succession of the Testator; the sale was made at auction on a credit of four months; the slave was delivered to the defendant and two days after being taken home was permitted by his new master to go off someplace for his clothes, he did not return, but absconded. An exception to the jurisdiction of the Court below was taken on the part of the defendant which was overruled. The defense on the merits is an allegation of the redhibitory view in the slave of running away, which was sustained by the Court after first instance and judgment rendered for the defendant from which the plaintiff appealed.

We're of opinion that the exception was properly set aside. The object of a proceeding originating in a motion for a destringus is to complete a sale ordered by the Court of Probates which may well be considered as the Tribunal most competent to carry into full effect its own orders. The correctness of the Judgment rendered on the merits is contested onto principal grounds: 1st. That the sale having been made by order of a Court is judicial and the Estate or the representatives of Lewis are not bound in warranty &c 2nd. That the record affords no legal evidence of a habit of running away in the slave purchased by the defendant.

As to the first of these grounds it is assessed

on the supposition that the act of 74?, p. 358 of the O. code had not been repealed, a doctrine supported by two decisions to be found in 6 N.I. pages 29 & 494. These decisions were made prior to the general repealing law - approved on the 25^th of March 1828. The clause of repeal is sweeping with effects, tremendously sweeping & by an unwise for inconsiderate interpretation on the part of the Courts of justice would have left the Community without any civil laws except those contained in the Louis^a Code & Code of Practice, an evil so great as to be irreconcilable with the wisdom that must be conceded to our Legislatures. Decisions in this Court have limited its effects to the Roman Civil Law, and the Spanish Laws in force in the country at the time of the repealing act, leaving the provisions of our own a Legislative Acts, still in force according to general rules of abrogation. But an exception in the repealing clause in favour of a particular chapter of the O. Code shews clearly the intention of the Legislature to repeal all other parts of it. It is not pretended that any provision Similar to those found in the O. code is any where assured Since in our laws subsequently enacted.

The second ground of defense against the right of redhibition claimed by the defendant, is that on which the decision of the cause mainly rests. The only evidence in support of the position assumed in relation to the redhibitory view or defect of character in the slave of bought (viz., the habit of running away, is the presumption established by law arising from the fact of his having run away within the three days immediately after the purchase &c The act of: 2508 of the L^aCode is relied on in support of this presumption. To understand that no reference must be made to some of the general provisions on the subject of redhibition. The vices or defects in slaves which give rise to rehibitory actions are divided into two classes; such as affect the health of the subject and such as effects character, vices of body are distinguished into relative

and absolute. Those of body considered absolute are three, leprosy, madness, and epilepsy. The vices of character which give rise to redhibition are confined to the cases in which it is proved that the slave's has committed a capital offense or that he is addicted to theft or that he is in the habit of running away. It is subsequently provided in the Article above cited "that the buyer who institutes the redhibitory action must prove that the vice emitted before the sale was made to him. If the vice has made its appearance within three days or immediately following the sale, it is presumed to have existed before the sale."

On the part of plaintiffs it is contended that this presumption created by law regards solely vices of body & in our opinion with great force of reason. As to one of the vices of character it is wholly inapplicable; viz.: the commission of a capital crime. Neither can a habit be proven by proof of the single act. Habit is a result of many repetitions of the same act. Effect may be given to the provision of the Code by limiting it to disease or vices of body without making the law institute a forced and unreasonable presumption and one in some degree contrary to common sense.

This question was mooted pretty much at-large (if not absolutely decided) in the opinion pronounced in the case of Zarico vs. Habin. J. Marts. 372. According to the doctrine therein indicated the conclusion may very fairly have been drawn that the Court considered this presumption of law as Solely applicable to vices of body. It is true that decision was made under the government of the Old Code but the new and old code are touching this matter Similar in their provisions.

It is believed that this rule of evidence was borrowed from the Spanish law on the Subject of redhibition and although these laws are now repealed We presume it cannot be viewed as a judicial offense to resort to them in aid of interpretation. We find into 25th No. under the head a Redhibitoria have been in in the Curia Philipian provisions very Similar to those contained in the art

2508th of the Louis^a code, but from the expressions there used it is evident that the rule in relation to the presumption arising from the appearance of the vice within the three days immediately Succeeding the Sale is intended to apply exclusively to vices of body. It may be well to give the author's own words: "Para haber dugar de redhibitrea & ? ha de Ses el vicis & defecto inique. Se funda macedo antes dela verita & c si no es que fue concebedo y enhinerado autes y despues empezo a parecer que entonced ha lugar, conforme a un tento y cepola equal (alegando ???) dice que duda si es macedo el vicio vientenente: o his dias despues de la venta Ic presence ser habido antes de ella & c."

It appears to us that would be in direct opposition to the philosophy of language to say that a visor defect made its appearance Suddenly and by one single act or circumstance where to constitute the vice, habit or a series of acts are required. The defendant has failed to produce legal proof in Support of his exception as being based on an existing vice.

It is therefore ordered &c that the Judg^t^. of the Court of Probates be avoided, reversed and annulled and in this further Ordered that the rule taken on the defend^t for a destringus be made absolute and that the appellee pay the costs of this appeal; reserving to him his right to prosecute his redhibitory deliver (if any he has.)

A true copy

A. Carillier

F.N.B. LeBredon, Clerk

Court of Probates

Succession of Robert Lewis,

The Testy. Exec., appellant

Cazenare, appellee

Mandate filed May

14th 1834

A. Hossman

Dep. R. of Wills

Court of Probates

The State of Louisiana

To any of the Associate Judges of the City Court of New Orleans.

Estate of Robert Lewis

Heirs of Lewis

Vs.

C.A. Jacobs

Greeting:

Know you that we, reposing confidence in your prudence and fidelity, do by these presents give unto your authority, diligently to examine all Witnesses whatever, as well on the part of the Plaintiff as of the Defendant, in a certain suit now pending in our said Court, in

which the heirs of Robert Lewis are plaintiffs and C.A. Jacobs and others are defendants.

Therefore, we desire you that at certain times and places by you to be appointed for that purpose, you cause the said witnesses to come before you, that you then and there examine them apart, upon their respective corporal oaths first taken before you upon the Holy Evangelists, that you reduce their examinations to writing; and when you shall so have taken them, that you send the same with this commission, closed up under your seal, to us and our said court, at the city of New Orleans, without delay.

Witnessed, the honorable Charles Maurian, Judge of our said court, this fifteenth day of December in the year of our Lord One thousand eight hundred and thirty two and in the fifty-seventh year of the independence of the United States.

G. Hossman

Dep R. Of Wills

Heirs of Lewis {? - Charles A. Jacobs-Hardin Tillman

Vs . {A. R. Taylor Beverly Chew Clrk

C. A. Jacobs {Orphan Boys Asylum & Girls Orphan

Asylum

Please take notice of the that this 6th Dec. 1832 at one-half past 4 PM the plffs will take the testimony of witnesses before me and a commission from the Parish Courts in the case ~ at the office on John Slidell Esq. in rear of the Custom House.

Dec. 17,1832

P. F. Smith judge

Charles A. Jacobs, served at his Countinghouse

H. Tillman - served at his Countinghouse

A. R. Taylor " " " "

Bev. Chew - personally????

H.? Howper

Deputy Marshall

Dec. 17th 1832

Sworn and subscribed at

New Orleans, Dec. 17th 1832

?????

P. F. Smith judge

(seal)

Howell Lewis &als {Testimony taken by consent

vs. {January 12th 1833

Charles A. Jacobs &als {

Samuel Pritchard witness for plaintiffs sworn being thereon the envelope of the will recognizes his signature thereto. The first time he saw this paper was in the hands of Mr. Jacobs who was folding it up in the mantelpiece he, Mr. Jacobs, then handed it to W^m Y. Lewis the notary who presented it to the deceased Robert Lewis and asked him if he acknowledged it to be his will and to which he answered yes & said nothing more in addition to and signed his name on the envelope. That he had a faint recollection that he saw the deceased signed the Will & handed over to Mr. Jacobs to be enclosed in the envelope, but is not positive about this, he thinks the envelope must have been sealed when it was handed by Mr. Jacobs to the notary W.Y. Lewis. If it had been open he thinks he should have taken notice of it at the time, witness thinks the deceased was not quite so weak when he signed the will as he was when he signed the envelope although but a few minutes elapsed between the two signatures. When he was raised up in bed to sign the envelope he appeared angry and observed what am I to sign it twice,

Cross-Examined

he thinks it was on a friday that he was called upon to witness the Will, he went into the room where the dec^d was lying sick, he believes there were only four of the witnesses present when he arrived. He believes the deceased had the Will in his hand when he entered the room. He has a faint recollection that he had, it was Mr. Robert Lewis the deceased who handed the will to Mr. Jacobs.

Principal Examination

that he did not read the Will, but from the size and appearance of the paper and now shewn him he thinks this seems to be the paper which Mr. Lewis the deceased had in his hand, when he entered the room. Witness has a faint recollection of the signature of the Testator be crossed over and that he signed it over again, that he has no recollection that the superscription on the envelope was read to the witnesses is before their signing neither did he read it himself.

John Freeland witness for the plaintiffs, sworn, being shown the envelope recognizes his signature thereto, the first time he saw this paper was in the hands of the deceased Robert Lewis then sick in his bed, witness thinks that he was the last of the subscribing witnesses who entered the room and found the others assembled there. Mr. Lewis the notary asked the deceased Robert Lewis if that was his Will, he replied affirmatively witnessed is not recollect whether he said yes, or, it is, he said nothing more the will was then in the hands of the deceased who signed the envelope and handed it to the notary W.Y. Lewis and he requested the witnesses to sign which they did he thinks they all signed in his presence, he thinks W.Y. Lewis, the notary wrote something on the envelope after the witnesses had signed, the witnesses after signing dispersed. Witness remained only a few minutes, what is written on the envelope and witness believes was not read to the witnesses before signing, nor did he himself read it.

Cross-examined

that he did not charge his memory with what paper at the time he witnessed the Will. He thought that he was merely called there to sign as a witness and thought no more about it, he supposes his recollection would have served him better in the following day than it does at this time. He has no recollection that W.Y. Lewis the notary wrote anything on the envelope previous to the witnesses

signing it but he thinks that he wrote something on it after they had signed it.

Principal examination

that he recollects what he has stated to have taken place did take place as described by him, but his recollection of all that paper is not so fresh in his memory as it was immediately after its transpired.

Joseph Bonnard witness for the plaintiffs sworn being shown the envelope of the Will recognizes his signature thereto the first time he saw this paper was in the hands of Rob Lewis deceased. He had it in his hand waiting the arrival of the witnesses to sign it as soon as they had all assembled, he signed the envelope witness did not hear him say anything when he signed. The witness was too far from him to hear if he had said anything, after he had signed it was handed to the Notary W. Y. Lewis and he together with the witnesses proceeded into the adjoining room for the purpose of getting a table to sign it on. Witness saw W^mY. Lewis sign his name on the envelope after all the witnesses had signed, he does not recollect to have seen him write anything on the the envelope except his name, that he has no recollection of having heard the superscription read or of having read it himself.

Cross-examined

when he says that he did not hear the testator say anything about the will when it was handed to the notary, he means to say that he does not recollect to have heard him say anything, he might have heard him say something on the subject & have forgotten all about it, the room where they went to sign was the adjoining room to where Rob Lewis lay sick the door opened.

Out of one into the other and you could see from one into the other.

W^m F. Jones witness for the plaintiffs sworn recognizes his signature to the envelope the first time he saw that paper it was in the hands of Mr. Jacobs and he saw him Jacobs seal it, or enclose it with wafer in the presence of Robert Lewis Mr. Jacobs then handed it to the deceased Robert Lewis and the notary then asked the deceased if that was his last will, he replied affirmatively he said yes or something to that effect, and made no other observation at the time, the deceased then handed the paper to W.Y. Lewis the notary who wrote the superscription on it in his, witness’s, presence handed back to the Testator and he signed his name to it, he does not recollect to have seen the Testator in the first-place hand the paper to Mr. Jacobs which he Jacobs enclosed the Testator made some remark when he signed the envelope expressing his uneasiness at being troubled or disturbed the witnesses all signed the envelope after the superscription was written & the testator had signed.

Jan. 14,1833

W.Y. Lewis Esq. Notary Public. Witness on the part of the defendants, sworn says that he is a Notary Public of the city duly commissioned. That he drew the superscription on the envelope of the will, that he was called and twice by the deceased Robert Lewis with regard to his will. That on the first time about the 22 August last nothing was done on that day, the reason why is witness wished him to make an open Will. He declined during this stating that he did not wish

everyone to hear it read and to know what he was doing and there not being the necessary number witnesses at hand or present on this day deponent went away. Witness was sent for the second time on the 24 August, when he arrived at the house the witnesses had not all got there, Mr. Jacobs in an outer room showed witness the outlines of a Will, which he believes to be the same Will on file, he recollects the last clause in the will, which was not there when it was first shown to him by Mr. Jacobs, who asked the opinion of Witness and he Witness told him that he thought that clause should be put there, at this time the Will was not signed. Mr. Jacobs then went into the room of Robert Lewis with the Will and there read it to him in the hearing of witness, who did not go into the room but from the door he heard it, because Mr. Lewis did not wish the notary or any person other than Mr. Jacobs to know the contents of it, a few minutes after this the deceased was raised up in his bed and signed the Will, witness saw him sign from the door where he was standing a distance of about nine feet from the bed. Witness being asked to read the will and to state whether it is the saying that he heard Mr. Jacobs read to the deceased in his bedroom, says, after looking over it, that he thinks it is the same, he can discover no difference in it, that what Mr. Jacobs first handed the will to witness to peruse, he did not read it attentively but merely glanced over it hastily because he felt no interest in its contents, but when he arrived at the clause of appointing the executor he suggested the last clause should be put in. It was after this clause was put in and that witness heard Mr. Jacobs read the will to the deceased and after it had been read it was handed to the Testator who held it

Some time in his hand because he was so much exhausted from being raised up in the bed that he could not sign it immediately. He had the will sometime in his hand and witness saw him turn it & look over it but knows not if he read it, he might have read it if he would, his head was raised on pillows when he was looking at the Will, he was perfectly in his senses at this time. Witness conversed with him an immediately after arriving he then stated that his disorder was the liver and bowel complaint which exhausted him greatly but that he expected to be out again soon, witness used to do business for him as his Notary. Witness saw the Deceased sign the will, he was raised up in the bed and a book was placed under it when he signed, witness could see him distinctly from the door where he stood, after he had signed he handed it to Mr. Jacobs, who immediately enclosed it and sealed it up in the envelope in the presence of witness, he Mr. Jacobs then handed it back closed up to the Testator and deponent and the witnesses were then requested to walk into the room. Deponent? on entering the room inquired if the witnesses were all present they answered that they work, there were seven present all these who signed the Envelope, deponent then went up to the Bed of the Testator who handed him the envelope closed and sealed up and stated that it contained his last Will written by another but signed by himself. Witness then an immediately wrote the superscription on the envelope of then returned again to the Bedside & again asked if all the witnesses were present they answered themselves that they were, Witness then read to the testator that he had declared that he had delivered to deponent this Envelope closed and sealed which contained his last Will written by another and signed by himself. That witness observed in the reading from the envelope that he

Had omitted the word closed. But in reading from the superscription to the testator he read as if the word had been there he discussed it at the time but did not like to Intestine? the superscription. He knew that the law required it, deponent then observed to the Testator that he must sign the envelope he appeared to vexed at having to be disturbed a second time to sign and inquired of deponent if his signing could not be dispensed with, deponent replied that it could not, but observed that he would wait on him until he was rested. Shortly after this he was raised up and a stand was placed in the Bed & he signed the envelope when he got to the letter S. in his name he had not been enough ink the pen to finish. Witness observed him that it would do as it was, the testator after having signed his name handed the envelope back to deponent who then ask him the testator if he knew it to be the same that he had handed to him previous to the superscription being there declaring it to be his last will written by another but signed by himself. He said that he recognized it to be the same by answering Yes. deponent then retires with the witnesses into a room opposite the door of the Bed room of the deceased where there was a small writing desk on a table. When the witnesses all signed the envelope one after the other as quick as they could write their names & it was then closed by deponent signing his name as notary. All the witnesses were present from the time the envelope was handed to deponent till they & opponent had signed it, & the matter was closed, witness knows they were all there from the circumstance of his being aware at the time that they should be all present, thus it was requisite & he deponent was watching them to see they were present.

Cross-examined

he presumes the Room where the Testator lay to be about 18 feet square he was laying on mattresses nearly opposite the door that opened into the adjoining Room (had been removed out of his Bed) which stood in the corner of the room, from the bed where the testator late you could see nearly two-thirds of the side wall of the outer Room. Mr. Jacobs, when he read the Will, stood on the side of the bed nearest the door which looked into the adjoining room, deponent stood at the door and the Testator might have seen him if he had look that way. Witness had understood from Mr. Jacobs that the Testator did not wish anybody to hear his Will read but notwithstanding this he deponent did hear it read & saw it signed. Mr. Jacobs had told witness that he ought to be present and that he wished him to be a Room, witness would not go into the room but remained at the door, and listened attentively to the reading of the Will, the reason witness paid attention to the reading of the Will was that he had been requested to hear it read by Mr. Jacobs, who stated to deponent that he was placed in a delicate situation having wrote the will & being Executor himself & that he had endeavored to have the testator make a different description of Will but that he had refused and as our Jacobs had expressed himself that he did not wish to be his executor, that Mr. Jacobs read the whole of the Will every word of it, he knew he read the whole of the Will because he began at the head of it and ended at the bottom and from seeing the Will when it was opened and proved in this court, deponent read it at that time.

Deponent thinks that 20 minutes are half an hour elapsed between

the signing of the will and the superscription by the Testator. He thinks the Testator died about 2 days after the signing of the Will. He thinks he died with the liver complaint, He had been sick a long time & had been confined. he thinks some two or three weeks to his bed, deponent does not think he was more feeble when he signed the envelope that he was when he signed the will, so short a time elapsed between, he was not raised in the same position when he signed the envelope then he was when he signed the Will, when deponent speaks of sealing the envelope he refers to its being closed up with wafers and pressed with the thumb & that no other mode of sealing was used. When the Testator signed his name to the Will he observed that he had not ink enough in his pen or that it was too light, and ran his pen through the name he first wrote, and signed his name over again. When he signed the appeared to be laboring under great bodily pain and was supported by his nurses. His voice at the time appeared to be strong, but was very weak in body.

Principal examination resumed

The Testator had his senses perfectly at this time and in a conversation with deponent observed that he had to his old complaint that he had recovered from it before and that he thought he should recover again and get out in a month or so.

Jany 25

Dept. introduce into evidence the process verbal of the proof of the will which is allowed by the plaintiffs reserving the benefit of all legal exceptions thereto.

Supreme Court of the state of Louisiana

Fri. May 24th 1833

the court met

present the honorable F. X. Martin

the honorable Allen Porter

2480

Howell Lewis & als {

appees. {Appeal from the court of probates

Vs. {of New Orleans

C. A. Jacobs & als {

appte. {

In this case of the court this date delivered their opinion in writing in the records and figured following, viz.~~~~~~

This is an action instituted by the heirs of the deceased Robert Lewis, to annul and set aside an instrument which had been probated as his last will and testament; or in case the will should not be declared void in toto, to have certain bequests therein contained annulled.

The petition sets out that the will which the plffs seek to annul purports to be the mystic will of the said Robt Lewis written by another person and for the validity of such wills the law expressly required that the same or the papers Serving as their envelope be closed and sealed. 2nd that the testator shall present the same thus closed & sealed to the notary and to seven witnesses or cause it to be closed and sealed in their presence. 3rd that he shall declare to the notary in presence of the witnesses that the paper contains his testament written by himself or by another by his direction and signed by him the testator. Which your petitioners aver and are ready to prove was not done and which does not as it ought to appear to have been done from the act of superscription of the said Will.

The answer puts at issue the heirship of the plaintiffs, attests the validity of the will, and avers the legality of the several legacies contained in it.

There is also an answer by one of the

legatees a prayer of interposition on the part of one Sarah Lewis and an answer on the part of the attorney appointed to represent the absent heirs which we do not consider necessary to set out.

Before we enter on the principal questions in the cause, there are two or three points of considerable importance but of easy Solution which may be disposed of.

The first in order of these is an objection to the Sufficiency of the evidence to establish that the plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased. It appears from the testimony adduced that they were born in Virginia and that in that State no official Register of Marriages is Kept, nor any of births. We think under these Circumstances that the relationship may be proved by reputation and by other facts tending to establish the connexion. The evidence on that basis satisfys us in the present case that the plaintiffs are the heirs of the deceased.

The Second is that the Court of Probates had not jurisdiction in this case and could not entertain a suit to annul a will. We think on the contrary it had jusrisdiction and we do not see that any other Court had . The probate Court had already received the will and ordered its execution. While that judgment or order stood unrevised, no other court could declare the will void and say it should not be executed. The suit was therefore properly brought. No other tribunal could collaterally examine into the correctness of the proceeding by which the will was probated.

The third objection is that the allegations in the petition did not authorize the introduction of parol evidence to attack the verity of the testament even admitting that Species of proof to be admissable under proper agreements/assessments?

We have already in order to shew the thought

of this objection so cut? verbatim the allegations in the petition. It appears to us they did authorize the proof. The plaintiffs say they will prove that these things which are necessary to give validity to the Will were not done; it is true they add that these things do not appeared to have been done as they should appear by the subscription; but under these allegations, the fair and just construction appears to us, that they would prove by evidence alone?? As well as by the instrument itself that the formalities of law had not been complied with.

But another serious objection is made to the introduction of parol evidence. The Act of the Notary receiving the Will in the presence of witnesses is an authentic act & it makes full proof of what is contained in it. To authorize you to disprove its Verity you should have made an inscription de faux as is the practise in France. Such is certainly the course of proceeding in that country. And it appears to their are two inscriptions of this kind. Faux principal which we understand to be equivalent to a prosecution here on behalf of the State against the authors of the crime. The other is called the faux incidental to which we have nothing similar in our practice, and which we do not think it my decision??? we ever should. By this proceeding whenever an act is presented by one of the parties in the cause of a trial which ???? it to be authentic, and the other alledges is it is not so. The civil suits is suspended until a trial can be had in the inscription de faux which partakes of the character of a criminal prosecution.

This in France it is proper to remark is the consequence of positive Legislation. Here our Legislature have furnished us with no provisions on the subject which implies very strongly they did not intend the remedy should be used. Our practice in Louisiana it appears to us is more simple and direct and attains the ends of parties just as efficiently. We do not wait for Judgment and the Criminal Jurisdiction, because it could not be evidence against those whose civil rights were affected by the instrument. Instead of the faux incidental we permit the party attacking the instrument to introduce the proof in the Civil Suit. All we require of him is that if the Act emanates from him are his alleged to emanate from him, he shall attack it directly, and put his opponent on his guard. 6. N. S. 512. We see no reason to change our practice, positive law does not require us to do so. Convenience does not. under our Code we think there is the same authority to bring a Suit to to set aside an instrument which stands in the way and obstructs the enjoyment of a right to property as there is to sue directly for that property itself. And if the suit can be brought, the proof may be admitted, unless we come to the conclusion that what notaries do is binding on the whole world which is not pretended & could not be maintained.

We now come to the merits of the case. The Louis^a code requires for the validity of the mystic or secret testament, that:

The testator must sign his dispositions whether he has written them himself or has caused

them to be written by another person.

The paper containing those dispositions are the paper serving of their envelope must be closed and sealed.

The testator shall present it thus clothed and sealed to the Notary and to seven witnesses argue shall cause it to be closed and sealed in their presence. Then he shall declare to the Notary and presence of the witnesses that the paper contains his testament written by himself or by another by his direction & signed by him the testator.

The objects of these ceremonies is to prevent impositions being practiced on men in their last moments. And the law in its anxiety to guard against the testator being circumvented our practiced on, will not permit a testament to have any effect, no matter how strong the moral evidence may be that it contains truly his last dispositions of his property. The formalities (our code says) must be observed, otherwise the testaments are null and void. Courts of Justice therefore can do nothing else but cogene???? when case of this kind arise whether the formalities have been pursued.

In the case before us the evidence satisfys us that the testator did not declare in the presence of the witnesses whether the well have been written by himself or by another under his dictation & signed by him. This declaration is required to guard as much as possible against the substituting thereafter another will in place of that which the testator presents and in furtherance of the object which the law has so much in heart is not without its utility. But whether of utility or not it is a formality in the making the will; it is a formality which has not been pursued and for want of which the law has declared the testament shall be null and void.

It has been contended that the words used in the law are not indispensably necessary to be followed by the testator and that other language which conveys the same idea is sufficient, this is true, and there are several cases decided in the parish courts on that principle. Whenever it can be fairly inferred from what was done that the law has been complied with it is sufficient. Here one cannot indulge in such a presumption for the proof repels it

It is therefore ordered, judged and decreed that the judgment of the probate court be affirmed with costs.

A true copy

A. B.Lettoretore, Clerk

The State of Louisiana

Parish in City New Orleans

Court of Probates

Succession of

Robert Lewis

Be it remembered that on this 21st day of February and the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred and thirty-five and the 59th Of the Independence of the United States Of America.

By virtue of and in obedience to an order from the honorable the Court of Probates in and for the Parish in City of New Orleans State of Louisiana bearing date the 6th day of January One Thousand Eight Hundred and Thirty-five and rendered on the ??? ???? Charles A. Jacobs and William M. Lambeth assignees of certain heirs of Robert Lewis vs. Sarah P. Davis and other heirs of said Lewis as also by virtue of a family meeting of the minor heirs of the late Robert Lewis deceased, duly held before A. Mazurian Esq. Notary Public on the 19th day of December 1830 for whose deliberations have been duly homologated by this honorable court on the 6th day of January 1835 and the advertisements and publications as required by law having been duly in ???? And published into other newspapers

printed in this city of New Orleans to wit: in the "Bee" on the 17th 24th 30th and 31st days of January 1835. And of the fifth 6th 12th 13th and 19th days of February 1835 in the French and English languages. And in the "Louisiana Advertiser" on the 19th 20th 23rd and 29th days of January 1835 and of the second fifth ninth 12th 16 and 19th days of February 1835 in the French and English languages. I, Samson Blossman Deputy Register of Wills in and for the Parish in City New Orleans aforesaid, did, at the hour of 12 o'clock at noon repaired to the New Exchange Coffee House corner of Chartres and St. Louis Streets and then and there after having read and allowed and distinct voice the terms and conditions hereinafter expressed and specified did expose for sale for account of the succession of the aforesaid Robert Lewis deceased the following described landed property to wit:

Landed Property

1. One a lot of ground situate on void is Street where on the dwelling house of the deceased Robert Lewis is built, with all the improvements consisting of one-story frame house in front and the two-story back brick building and kitchen in the rear built also brick running back to the dividing wall of the brick warehouse and the said brick building with the four foot Alley on each side of the

dwelling from Poydras Street ~ and another lot of ground with its buildings situate and forming the North East corner of Porter Street and the intended basin of the Canal Gravier, said to lots of ground measuring altogether one hundred and thirteen feet front (French measure) on Poydras Street by one hundred and seventy feet on the said the intended basin of the Canal Gravier or Barrone Street - being the same which has been purchased by the deceased Robert Lewis of Joseph Sanchez as by an act executed before G. R. Stringer notary on the 25th day of November eighteen hundred and twenty-five.

The above described property was not sold no person having bid the appraised value thereof which is twenty-one thousand dollars and Charles A. Jacobs Esq. one of the plaintiffs being present at the coffee house when the above was offered for sale was informed by me that the property could not be sold for less than the appraised value, he then thought it advisable to postpone the offering of the other property until a decision could be had whether as they same could be sold for less than the valuation or not. As there appeared to him as well as myself no prospect of effecting a sale in consequence of the defect or irregularity in the titles to part of the property which was announced publicly at the offering whereupon the sale now postponed and the present process verbal closed on the day month and year first before written.

S. Hossman

Dep. Rg. of Wills

# Opened in 1832

Mortgage office.

The undersigned recorder of mortgages for the parish and City of New Orleans, state of Louisiana certifies that in the records in his office, there is no mortgage standing in the name of Robert Lewis, and recorded against the following described property, to wit:

1. ??? lots of ground in Poydras Street measuring together one hundred thirteen feet front, French measure, on Poydras Street by one hundred seventy feet on the intended basin of the Canal Gravier or Barrone Street. Together with the buildings and improvements thereon.

2. A lot or parcel of ground and buildings, in Gravier Street in the suburb St. Mary in that green bounded by Gravier, Camp, Common and Magazine Streets, measuring 100 feet and nine inches front on Gravier Street and an irregular depth.

3. The undivided half of three lots of ground situate in the square formed by Girod, Camp, Lafayette and St. Mary streets in suburb St. Mary designated by the number is seven,eight, and nine all fronting Camp Street.

4. Peter, mulatto man aged about thirty-five years.

5. Linus a Negro man aged about 30 years.

New Orleans April thirteenth 1835.

P. Lawrence

Rec^r..

State of Louisiana | Mortgage Office

Parish of Jefferson |

The undersigned, Parish Judge, in and for the Parish of Jefferson, and ex officio Recorder of Mortgages therein, do hereby certify that from the records in my office, there is no other mortgage recorded in the name of Robert Lewis on the following described property: to wit: one. 1. On one lot of ground situated in the suburb Lafayette, designated in the plan thereof by the letter L and being on the batture measuring sixty feet on the public road, or Sever Street, running bands, back to the river, bounded on one side by lot marked M and on the other side by lot marked K.___________________________________________________________________

2. On five lots of ground situated in the Nuns Suburb in theIslet or square encompassed by St. Felicité road, St. Amand Street, St. Mary's road and Bellegarde Street the set lots designated and as numbers six, seven, thirteen, fourteen, and sixteen, in Islet No. "eight" B.

Lot number "six" measures forty-eight feet, two inches front Felicité road by one hundred twenty feet deep.

Lot number "seven" measures forty-eight feet two inches front on Felicité road by one hundred twenty feet deep.

Lot number "thirteen" measures, fifty feet front on St. Mary Street by a depth of one hundred twenty feet.

Lot number "fourteen" measures fifty feet front on St. Mary Road by one hundred and twenty feet in depth .

Lot number "sixteen" measures fifty feet front on St. Mary Road by one hundred and twenty feet in depth the whole French measure:=: that the one he, the said Robert Lewis, granted by act before Theodore Seghers, Notary Public for the City of New Orleans, dated January 25th 1832. On the last five described lots of ground situated in the Nuns Suburb in favor of his vendor Lucien Guillaume Hiligsberg of the Parish of St. Bernard, to the payment of his these several promissory notes of even date with said act, do they order of said seller each for two thousand two hundred forty dollars which said notes countersigned "no variation" by the said note 3, are made payable at one, two, and three years after date.

Parish of Jefferson April 10th 1835