*1 al., Appellants, Mary Josephine WOOD et PAULUS,
Henry Independent Execu S. Will of Trustee of and under the tor and Paulus, Deceased, al., Appel Annie C. et lees.
No. 878. Texas, Appeals of Civil Court Corpus Christi. May Rehearing Denied June *4 Houston, L. Ray, Ray,
Carl Tabor & for appellants. Schwarz, Hallettsville,
Armond G. Clark Murray, Floresville, Mary Philley, C. Hous- ton, Oden, Alice, Crain, Kenneth Newton M. Jr., Crain, Winter, Deaton, Houser & Hous- ton, appellees.
OPINION
YOUNG, Justice. primarily
This case attempt concerns the *5 to share under a by (Mary will one Joseph- Wood) ine who grand- claims to be the (Annie of daughter Paulus) the testatrix C. the legitimacy purported where granddaughter challenged by the other beneficiaries. court,
In the trial jury, Mary before a daughter contended that she awas of An- son, Paulus; nie’s Claude N. that she was provision share because of qualified to will: . Henry “. .to S. Paulus one-fourth (¼) my estate to be held in trust any begotten for lawfully him children Paulus, son Claude N. my my born after death, but in case he should die without leaving any living begotten children death, my wedlock lawful after then in such event one-fourth part my bequeathed estate is herein a child [to ., grandchildren] other . but the income paid thereof is to be to Claude evidence, At the conclusion of all the granted trial court the motion the oppo- Mary nents of to withdraw the ease from jury; consideration of the the court there- judgment opponents. after rendered A by Mary similar motion was denied the trial assignee-attor- court. She and her they similarly aligned ent are with neys appeal. Henry. Paulus, testatrix, Annie C. July died Appellants contend Mary qualifies Thereafter, Mary Septem- 1947. was born under the will of Annie. 12,1947. Subsequently, ber Claude N. Pau- that, Appellees contend as a matter of lus, father, Mary’s purported died June law, Mary qualified is not to take under Mary’s From the time birth until following Annie’s will for the reasons: no the summer one raised “begotten” means term con- questions about Mary’s qualification to take undisputed ceived. shows During Annie’s will. the time under after Mary was conceived before the death death days July Claude’s and a few before requires of Annie. The will that Mary be Henry Paulus, independent S. ex- after Annie’s conceived death. will,
ecutor of Annie’s received information 2. There is no evidence of a marriage Mary’s qualifica- him to doubt which caused between Claude N. Paulus and Lilia Con- tion to take. This information fur- was ner Paulus because: Paulus, nished Lilia Connor the mother purported and the last wife of undisputed A. It that Lilia was Claude. pregnant with before she ever met Claude. Paulus, Henry independent executor S. purported B. license in- under the will of and trustee Annie C. irregular into evidence was troduced Paulus, deceased, filed suit in Lavaca Coun- on and invalid its face. ty, enjoining Mary Texas for an order Jo- was C. license inadmissible be- Such assignees, sephine Wood and Carl L. comply it does not with cause Vernon’s Tabor, Ray, Jack and Tabor Ray, M. & from (Supp. Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 3731a suits previously certain filed in prosecuting 1974). Texas; County, courts of Harris for a Paulus, *6 of the will of Annie construction C. impediment is an D. There to deceased; for removal of cloud from title to marriage between purported Claude property; real and for a declaratory certain and Lilia because is still Claude mar- judgment. Thus, to Mildred Paulus. Mary ried begotten not have been could lawful that suit and filed a answered wedlock. alleging that she is the cross-action devisee of the estate of Annie of one-fourth and points first of er- Appellants’ and second requesting Henry pay that be ordered to phases of argue different the same is- ror portion over to her estate. marriage validity of the of Claude and sue: Lilia. Hale, individually Elton B. and as inde-
pendent executor of the estate of Edwin
dealing
we are
Since
with a directed
Hale;
Schneider;
Cyrene
Velma Hale
Rose
granted
appellees,
verdict
favor
we
Crain;
Hoffman;
Dawn Paulus
Cy-
Annie
sup
look
to
evidence which
will
Smith;
Paulus;
rene
David A.
Elizabeth
ports appellants’ position
accept
and
such as
McKenzie;
Q. Hightower;
Paulus
Catherine
433,
Slattery, 156
Adams v.
Tex.
true.
Paulus;
Hotchkiss;
Vaughn
Joe
Andrew H.
(1956);
E.
Walter
Heller &
S.W.2d
Marjorie
Murray;
Paulus
Lilia
and
Conner
Allen,
Company, Inc. v.
that he did
a divorce
Registry
of the Civil
Officer
of the
Atizapan
Zaragoza,
Mildred Paulus on
Republic
from
de
City
December
1926.
origi-
Mr. Duran attested that the
Mexico.
Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art.
3726a
marriage certificate was under his care.
nal
(Supp.1974) provides that final judgments
comports
require-
attestation
with the
of courts
record of this state are admissi
3731a, 4, supra, that the
of article
ment
involving
in suits
ble
title to real estate as
“by
having
attested
the officer
copy be
family
history.
judgment
legal custody of the record .
. .”
pro tunc
nunc
recites that
upon
the court
hearing
copy
evidence and
a cer-
upon
Accompanying
certified
is
examination of
Meade,
personal records,
by
the court’s
Mr. Ramon
Consul of
tification
found that it
Houston,
granted
copy
a
had
divorce
at
that the certified
to Claude
Mexico
N. Paulus
marriage
signa-
and Mildred Paulus on
certificate bears the
December
1926.
entry
pro
nunc
Registry of
may
An
tunc
of the
of the Civil
be
ture
Officer
made at a
term
subsequent
personal
Atizapan.
on
Mr. Meade further
City
recollec
judge.
legal custody
tion of
said officer has
Such
certified that
recollection has the
dignity
marriage
original
force of
of the
certificate.
evidence.
Ft. Worth &
Ry. Co. v. Roberts,
D. C.
98 Tex.
81 S.W.
Appellees
by
contend that the certificate
(1904);
Neilson,
Blum
757 114, (1946), Board copy joint 145 Tex. 195 936 document is a certified of a S.W.2d v. Henry (who Commissioners of Texas a of Insurance affidavit of S. took Company position trial) Life Insurance of Tex Guardian contra at and J. F. Bozka. 630, (1944); as, 906 142 Tex. 180 S.W.2d affidavit states that both affiants had Company National Insurance years American known Paulus for 40 each Bank, (Tex. Wilson State S.W.2d knew that Claude and Lilia Paulus were 1972, writ). 1946, no Civ.App.—Amarillo Certifi married on or about November foreign “by any officer service cation and that is the child of that is an alternative marriage. objections of the United States” There were no to the apparent It is method of certification. that admission of this document into evidence. legislature of this state intended that This affidavit was under admissible certificate be made required could 3726a, supra, provides which article that in who is Republic Mr. Meade consul of the involving suits title to real estate an affida Mexico, where the original marriage certifi concerns the family history, gene vit which kept. purpose cate is of article 3731a is status, alogy, marital or heirship of a dece credence to so give official documents if, dent is admissible evidence for five or they may competent have value years, more it has been filed or recorded in upon. Moody be relied county of a district or office clerk locat Moody, (Tex.Civ.App.—Cor 465 S.W.2d county ed in the in which pend the suit is e.; pus Christi writ ref’d n. r. cert. ing or in which the land is located. den. 406 U.S. S.Ct. 31 L.Ed.2d 823). nothing noted, There is previously the certification As this suit involves of a Mexican document title Consul of to certain real estate and the suit Houston, Texas, pending Mexico which detracts County. Lavaca The affidavit credibility from the of the document. In refers to matters of the family history of deed, 44(a)(2) permits marriage son, Fed.R.Civ.P. such a Claude, Annie: of her certification. grandchild and the birth of a of Annie. Therefore, affidavit, having been filed adopt appellees’ To construction of article September 18, 1948, record with the 3731a, disregard we would be forced County County, Texas, Clerk Lavaca was disjunctive “or” in question. the sentence in properly admitted in evidence. will not so do. We There is also evidence of an infor Appellees validity also attack the mal marriage between Claude and Lilia. marriage ground certificate on the Lilia admitted at the trial that she claimed Sunday. on a that it was issued The certifi to be Claude’s wife when she consulted a cate does not state the date of issuance. It 16,1947. on February Dr. Johnson also She ceremony performed recites that the was on testified she and Claude living started were, November 1946. Claude and Lilia together as husband and wife in June of therefore, on Sunday; married not issued 1947; they held themselves out to the marriage Sunday. on a certificate public as husband and early wife as as June properly trial court admitted the certified testimony 1947. This is some evidence of copy marriage certificate. We hold the existence of an marriage informal be marriage certificate is some evi fore was born. Family Tex. Code marriage dence of ceremonial entered into 1.91, (1975). Ann. V.T.C.A. Seay between Claude N. Paulus and Lilia 10, 1946. on November It is well settled that where two or marriage marriages person Further evidence of a valid be- more alleged, of a are and Lilia presumed tween Claude Paulus on Novem- most recent to be *9 10, 1946, appellants’ against pre- ber is exhibit 25. valid as marriage # each which
758
cedes it until one
validity
who asserts the
of
Assuming, arguendo, that the mar
prior marriage proves
continuing
va
riage between Claude Paulus and Mildred
lidity
prior
of the
marriage.
Family
Tex.
was not
Paulus
terminated as of December
Ann. 2.01 (1975);
§
Code
Employers’
Texas
1926,
we
appellees
believe
have failed to
Elder,
Insurance Association v.
155 Tex.
show that Claude did not obtain a divorce in
282
(1955);
S.W.2d 371
Speer,
O.
Marital
other proceeding
some
in
County
Harris
Rights
(4th
1962).
Texas
20
Ed.
§
before
elsewhere
his
to Lilia.
Having
this,
failed in
appellees have not
presumption
strongest
is one of the
rebutted,
law,
as a matter of
the presump
known to the
Supreme Court,
law. The
validity
of
tion
which has attached to the
Employers
Texas
Insurance Association v.
marriage of Claude
Lilia
Paulus. Da
Elder, supra, held:
Davis, 521
vis v.
S.W.2d 603 (Tex.1975);
“.
.
‘The presumption is,
itself,
Lucius,
Caruso v.
(Tex.Civ.
448
711
S.W.2d
evidence, and may
outweigh
even
positive
App.
e.). Ap
writ ref’d n. r.
— Austin
evidence to
contrary.
The strength
pellants’ first and
points
second
of error are
presumption
increases with the
sustained.
time,
lapse of
acknowledgments by the
parties to the marriage, and the birth of
By
point
error,
their third
appellants
of
children; and the fact that the legitimacy complain that the trial court erred in find-
of a child
be involved is a factor in ing as a matter
Mary
of law that
was not
sustaining
validity
marriage.’
entitled
anything
to take
under Annie’s
Marriage
55 C.J.S.
pages
892 — 893.” will, because there were issues of fact
which must be
point
resolved. This
is
Todd,
See also Watson v.
The party attacking the valid
forepart
us in the
part
opinion.
of this
ity of the marriage must introduce suffi Appellants
“begotten”
contend that
means
evidence,
alone,
standing
cient
negate
To the contrary, appellees
“born”.
contend
the dissolution
prior
marriage.
“begotten”
the term
means “con-
Simpson v. Simpson,
(Tex.
759
mean be
therein. Neblett
Obviously born does not
the facts stated
& Nor
Goukas,
mean
gotten,
begotten
beget
(Tex.Civ.
or
but
the will 6 is an order Appellants’ exhibit # therefore, We, conception. ing the date of County appointing of Harris Court Claude “begotten” by used hold that the term Paulus of the estate of N. Guardian Paulus, deceased, means “born”. C. Annie (Wood). Josephine judgment Paulus necessarily implies term “lawful” that relationship of does not recite the Claude Thus, by is sanctioned law. the will which Mary, Lilia to nor does it recite the nature the children of Paulus requires that Claude Mary. of the estate of This document is by be in wedlock sanctioned law. This born neither relevant nor material to the issues marriages necessarily includes informal properly by of this case and was excluded Family sanctioned Code. In this the trial court. appellants’ point third of error is respect, sustained. Appellants’ exhibit # 14 is an county order court of Lavaca Coun complains point fourth Appellants’ ty. Mary qualifies This order decrees that permitted erroneously the trial court that under Annie’s will and it allowed funds testimony con give which appellee-Lilla belonging ex to the estate of Annie to be a fact. We prior admission tradicted expenses Mary. Ap- in medical pended is an this point. this Since not discuss need pellees contend that this order is void be verdict, dowe an instructed from appeal authority had no county court cause the appel contrary to consider not independent executor of the estate over disposing of this case. position in lants’ appears Annie. This contention to be point complains fifth Appellants’ county sitting pro court correct. The appel- refusing to admit erred in court trial jurisdiction bate has conferred # 14 through 12 and 5 # exhibits # lants’ upon it the Texas Probate Code. State plead- are documents These evidence. into (Tex. Traylor, 203 of Texas S.W.2d record of courts of and orders of ings Sup.1963); also Tex.Pro.Code Ann. § contention appellants’ It state. (1956). purpose of section 145 V.A.T.S. facie evidence prima are documents these indepen of the Probate Code is to free lawfully ais Josephine Wood court, executor from the control of the dent Paulus, born N. of Claude begotten child where the except specifically Code and ex Paulus, begot- Annie C. the death after provides Bunting v. plicitly otherwise. lawful wedlock. ten Pearson, (Tex.Sup.1968). S.W.2d statutory have shown no author Appellants Appellants’ exhibits numbered County the Lavaca Court to issue the ity of 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12 are pleadings and a final exemplified by their exhibit # order prior accounting legal proceedings. proceedings guardian Appellants’ These deal with # 8 is an exhibit ship Mary Josephine (Wood). granting guardi Paulus N. Paulus as order Pleadings prior Mary Josephine actions are an of the estate of not evidence *11 By error,
(Wood), point their of authority to sixth gas execute an oil and argue appellants Mary qualifies that upon under Mary lease the undivided ¼ interest of Annie’s will as a matter of law. This con in certain land. The order does not recite tention is in error. Even if we assume that origin appellant-Mary’s of title. The appellants have land, however, established a valid apparently part is mar of the riage between and a Paulus, deceased, of Claude Lilla as estate Annie C. matter which law, there still of remains a fact issue re was devised under will. This document garding the identity Mary’s of father. Lilia is under article not admissible 3726a be- (on exceptions) testified a of bill that cause it does not contain statements relat- Mary. was not the of “family Claude father This ing history, to genealogy, mari- testimony was status, improperly excluded because heirship tal of a decedent was it of Mary’s admissible the issue . .” it on is Nevertheless admissible qualification under the will. Davis v. Da of under terms article 3731a. It was vis, supra. Appellants’ point sixth is over made an officer of this state and is ruled. in Mary relevant that the court found that
had ¾ undivided interest in the property. For in our discussion the reason stated county The necessarily court would have point, point their appellants’ sixth seventh jurisdiction to determine the extent overruled. is child, property Mary. held Appellants’ eighth asserts point of error Appellants’ exhibit 11 is an # order of failing hold, in that the trial court erred to probate County, law, court of Harris Mary Texas. matter that as a Paulus Wood In this order the court found N. that Claude to entitled 5/minterest the estate was was the natural Mary Paulus, father of Jo- C. deceased. This contention Annie Paulus. sephine upon based the failure of is some appellants’ request to beneficiaries answer probate further found court genuineness for and admission of facts owned n undivided interest Mary that a documents under Rules of Civil Pro Texas certain lands. The order did not define the cedure, parties 169. those failed to Because origin of apparent her title. It is requests, granted answer the the trial court land is that which was devised under appellants’ requests deem motion to those finding will of Annie. court’s Therefore, appellants argue, admitted. was Mary the natural father is Claude Mary the deemed admissions entitle to the certainly 3726a. admissible under article Annie which the the estate of interest clearly aspect an This statement reflects defaulting parties Mary if would succeed family history Paulus, Annie C. de be unqualified should shown to be as a ceased, and is some evidence that Claude under the in question. devisee will Mary. father was the Because are reversing we case and this finding About the owned remanding it for for trial the reasons set estate, an undivided interest in certain real appellants’ first, in our discussion of out finding is admissible such because it is evi second, points, third and fifth we deem it finding of the court’s that Mary dence was appellants’ eighth unnecessary resolve under the will of Annie. a taker Because last) (the point. relevant, part
that evidence is re- judgment of the trial court is probate court’s order is admissible under and the versed cause is remanded trial. Appellants’ point article 3731a. fifth regard num overruled to their exhibits NYE, (concurring). Chief Justice 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, point bered and agree I regarding exhibits numbered 8 this case should be sustained reversed remanded for trial because there was Josephine question was can be broken down into two evidence1 that some granting subsequent clauses: clause and a the testatrix’s begotten child of lawfully they re- clause—divided read as follows: N. Paulus. son, Such disputed to submit the trial court quired jury. to the issues
fact GRANTING CLAUSE disagree I majority with the opinion in give Henry (Vi) “I S. Paulus one-fourth (2) major First, two areas. because the *12 by my estate to be held in trust him marriage license was improperly admitted any lawfully begotten my children of into evidence and interpretation second the Paulus, son, my Claude N. born after the majority gives to the testatrix’s death, will. It is fundamental primary that the con SUBSEQUENT CLAUSE the
cern of
courts in will construction is the
But in case he
leaving
should die without
determination of the
(testatrix’s)
testator’s
living
any
begotten
children
the
lawful
intent and
effectuation of that intent as
death,
my
after
then
wedlock
in that
legally possible.
far as is
Philleo v. Holli
event
.
. ”—etc.
day,
(Tex.Sup.1859);
rounding circumstances,
par
rather than a
strued according
legal import.
to its
But if
ticular word or
provision,
isolated
if the
the terms of the instrument create an ambi
intention is not clearly expressed. Haile v. guity, the will is to be construed in the most
Holtzclaw,
In order determine First, meaning we look to the ordinary paragraph in particular intent trix’s begotten. the word Almost all of the dic- copy joint setting heirship 1. A certified of a affidavit of the land was located out the Henry and J. F. Bozka S. Paulus which was of the decedent and the between county recorded in the office of clerk in and Lilia on November county pending where the suit was terminated begotten divorce). construe the could death or tionary definitions deprive (begot- legally In Webster’s Sev- Claude’s conceived mean conceive. word to Dictionary, ten) the term Collegiate right child the take the will. New under enth here, 1) procreate as Where as an absolute begotten is defined as: there has been sire; (“for father; 2) begotten In Black’s Law grant lawfully cause. children 1968), begotten son”) estate, is (4th my absolutely given, such Dictionary Ed. “ means the begotten’ by subsequent pro- ‘to be should not be as reduced defined will, embracing all those ‘begotten’, vision of a clear absence same begotten dur- shall have intent of the testatrix. If we followed the parent whom life, majority’s will, quos pro creaverit.” There construction this is ing his However, happen. would Nor would of the word born. what the subse- mention no defined, meaning interpreted by majority its clause as quent the word born when give or as manifest the testatrix’s intent to 1) brought into existence is: birth; quali- my 2) having specified from birth estate to the “children of son” when the ties; specified interpreted permit circumstances being in *13 clause as could a child to or New Colle- Seventh take her estate that was not the son’s birth. Webster’s child from Dictionary. long Black’s Law Diction- he was married at the time the In so as giate “if is described thus: word “born” child was born. ary, early born dead or at such an an infant The testatrix used begotten born and live, as to be unable to stage pregnancy will, her to-wit: “. . . For lawful- born”. In as never be considered it is to ly begotten my children of son Claude N. does not “born” the word instance each Paulus, born my after death. . .”. leaving thereby begotten word to the refer By using words, the two different it is clear that born inescapable conclusion us with the testatrix begotten used in the synonymous. They do begotten are not and of “conception” sense and the word “born” testa- meanings. The have different in fact in the sense of an actual birth. Otherwise and used both words knew of both trix would she have used born in both instances. in- sentence. Had she in the same words un- “begotten”, to mean tended “born” appears There to be an additional sound word. have used such doubtedly she would reason for the two different being terms say lawful- Again, why would the testatrix used in the will. The testatrix devised oth- words my son? child ly “born” er interest in her estate her other chil- Law- all. nearly tells it my son” “child of dren. She did require not that her chil- meaning, but particular has no fully born dren’s children be conceived in lawful wed- duty of It is the does. lawfully conceived lock nor were they required to be born after the intention to determine then Court her death as required son, she of her from the possible testatrix, far as Claude. The showed, however, language used. particular Paulus, that Claude youngest son, was a is not im- wedlock special lawful case born in and was treated To be as such in the Paulus Annie C. will. The under this will. evidence shows that portant Claude was gambler descendant of Claude and a direct lineal was in trouble many wanted times. her estate. share of forged to take Vith He had his mother’s name many Paulus place in the you Henry use the word “born” checks. If testified he had to subsequent part go to Houston 75 to “begotten” 100 help times to child conceived paragraph, legally Claude subject then, out. You could reason testatrix’s after the could be born Annie Paulus was motivated to spe- set out wedlock, i. e. not lawful cific and born in conditions that death those children of had been Claude that purported were (if Claude’s both lawfully begotten born after her death would take under ing clause of will. Said clause then the will. “but in case he should die would read: leaving any living begot- children without recapitulate, particular To provision (BORN) my after ten in lawful wedlock provides dispute of the will without event,” death then in that etc. This one-fourth of the estate was to be held in provisions of the would make both will by Henry trust Paulus with the income to throughout. recog- consistent It is a well go to Claude. Those amounts held in trust nized rule in will construction cases that were the benefit “any lawfully begot- sentences, words, or clauses or or even ten my children of son Claude N. Paulus”. paragraphs, transposed, whole be lawfully begotten Said children of Claude supplied rejected arriving at had to be born after the testatrix’s death. real intention of the testator. Mercan Thus, the testatrix up requirements set two Bank tile National at Dallas National for the take, children of Claude to to-wit: Foundation, Research Cancer 488 S.W.2d 1) only death; those children born after her (Tex.Civ.App. writ ref’d 2) only those children that were lawful- — Dallas e.); n. r. McClure Bailey, 209 S.W.2d ly begotten children. (Tex.Civ.App. writ ref’d n. — Waco undisputed It is “lawfully” means e.); Evans, r. Jackson v. 305 S.W.2d legitimate. The “begotten” term means to (Tex.Civ.App. Worth writ — Fort father; sire; procreate as the or cause. e.). Thus, n. ref’d r. in order to arrive at appear There to be numerous other instanc- testatrix, the real intention of the in order which the begotten es in word is construed *14 give to the words “born” “begotten” and to mean conceive or sire.2 For instance in proper their usual meaning, and in order to the Bible in the first chapter Matthew, granting make both the subsequent and “begot” the term is extensively used in the phrases of the will consistent throughout, meaning context of conceived or sired. Be- and in order to not arrive at a strained is a gotten biblical word and many is used will, construction the testatrix’s the word times Bible to mean conceived or ” supplied. “born should be The testatrix’s sired. The testatrix’s inescapably intent only intent follows: that children of her son was, any sired, lawfully procreated or conceived in lawful wedlock only chil- caused children during conceived the lawful dren of her son born after her death would Claude, of her son born after her take under the will. take, should death such constituting the Included in the record is a purported granting clause of this paragraph of the marriage certificate stating that will. and Lilia were married November 1946. part The second particular the provi- However, there is a question serious as to of the will question sion in reads: “but in its admissibility. Appellant introduced the he die leaving any case should without liv- document under the authority of article begotten children in
ing lawful wedlock aft- 3731a 4.§ my grant- death” is inconsistent with er require clause in that it would seem ing to question before us is whether the the child be conceived after her appellants death. offering in the documents evi- clause, with granting consistent dencing To be a marriage between Claude and should include the phrase word properly Lilia Paulus complied with the the words “after prior my statutory to method “BORN” of authentication of for- grant- same as it is used in the eign death” the official 3731a, documents under article Dictionary (21st Medical 2. Dorland’s ed. Dictionary (1968); tional Webster’s Seventh 1948); Wagnalls Desk Standard Funk & Collegiate Dictionary (1961). New Dictionary (1928); Webster’s Third Intema- Article reads Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. 3731a or possession insular subject to the do- as pertinent part follows: minion of the States, United the certifi- may cate be by made a judge of a court “Federal, State, Foreign Out of record of the district or political subdi- Records vision in which the kept, record is authen- Any 2. written instrument which “Sec. by ticated the seal of his office. If permitted required by or law to be is office in which the record kept ain made, filed, kept (including or recorded foreign state country, or the certificate certificate, to written but not limited may be made by a secretary of embassy contract, deed, statement, conveyance, legation, or general, consul consul, vice concession, covenant, record, lease, grant, consul, or agent consular byor any offi- return, event) by report or recorded an cer in the foreign service of the United of the or of officer or clerk United States States, by or any officer of a United any govern- or state nation or of another States military government, stationed forego- mental subdivision foreign state country or in which the deputy ing, by employee; by or or his record is kept, and authenticated foreign country of a any Notary Public seal of his office. . . .” (Emphasis protocol perform- or similar book in the supplied.) office, shall, ance of the functions his relevant, so far be admitted sections quoted The above of Article courts of this State as evidence of the requires 3731a in each instance that therein, subject pro- matter stated copy document is be attested to visions in Section having legal custody the officer requires
record. first instance having be attested the officer copy Party “Notice Adverse custody of the record. In the second legal writing “Sec. Such shall be admissi- instance, copy an except in the case of a party offering ble if the it has deliv- writing public office of this official from a thereof, copy ered a or so of it as much thereof, or a the attesta- State subdivision controversy, relate to the to the ad- *15 accompanied is to be with a certificate tion party verse a reasonable time before tri- attesting legal has the cus- the officer al, opinion unless in the of court the trial instance, in writing. such The third tody of party unfairly the adverse has not been kept the office in the record is which which surprised by the failure to deliver such territory the United or within a is in States copy. subject possession to the domin- or consular States, the United the of certificate ion Copy “Authentication of by judge made a of a of be court may political district or of the record subdivision writings may be evi- “Sec. Such the kept, record which is in authenticated by publication denced official thereof an seal of again, his Here the by the office. copy by a attested hav- byor the officer is that the certification is be requirement to record, custody ing legal by the of the or particular person, by a named where made Except deputy. copy his in of a the case (Emphasis kept. supplied.) record is such writing public of an official a office from concerns an instru- thereof, fourth instance a of this State or subdivision the foreign In country. kept in a accompanied be that is attestation shall with a ment a case, by be made the the certificate attesting certificate that officer has this legation, or consul custody secretary embassy of legal of such If writing. the the counsul, agent or consular vice or in which the record is kept general, office is with- foreign service the officer in the of any United or territory by in the States within a
765
by
issued
the
‘been
lawful
copies had
States,
of a United
the
byor
officer
United
original
the
document extant
Military
stationed in
of
government,
custodian
States
Municipality
the
foreign
country
state or
in
the archives
which the
in
the
years 1827-1830’.”
kept. This
for the
part
last
of the sen-
Matamoros
record
added).
foreign
(Emphasis
state or
“stationed
tence
country
kept”
in which the
record
modi-
Again,
Conger,
in
Williams
The $500 marriage. law According common to the testi- envelope a valid Garcia. Lilia had Garcia, job Lilia met Claude mony shows that of Gillermo his for Claude evidence arrange a marriage in 1947. testified for Claude and first time She was met personally time she that he was pregnant at the He testified she was Lilia. not purported marriage Claude was at the ceremo- present stated that She Claude. parents kept testi- Josephine. Lilia testified that her Mary ny. Such father Davis, Josephine Davis v. while she Claude went Mary See and was admissible. mony against undisputed was is clear from such (Tex.1975). It It to Mexico. S.W.2d such, testify. As it is and Lilia were not to so that Claude evidence interest binding upon her. and 1946 when the child cogent in December married considered September was born conceived. Lilia testified that the date Josephine was Mary D., Renger, M. testified Harvey marriage certificate was November Dr. on 1947. period gestation assuming Sunday. normal which was on a Gillermo a was Garcia, on this date delivery, a child born the disinterested witness testified and December, government month of all official offices in the conceived Atizapan month. at de Zar- day Republic or 17th of that of Mexico and the 15th around performed not have been this Josephine agoza could which could have Mary Since (if jury Sundays. on wedlock” were closed in lawful transaction “begotten itself testimony), this would of believed appears It thus appellant that the Mary taking under the appellant from preclude Josephine Wood have difficulty in will. up a proving marriage. valid ceremonial If discount- compelling evidence was There jury chose to believe that Joseph- reflects marriage. The record legal ing any pregnant ine’s mother was at the time she City Lilia went to Mexico Claude first met Claude and that Claude Paulus trip first to Mexi- This was Lilia’s in 1948. was not in fact the father of Joseph- trip, according to purpose of said co. ine, then I do not believe that she should a mar- Lilia, obtain and backdate was to the will of Annie take under Paulus. The license, showing that she and Claude riage rely upon majority legal would common This lat- married November were marriage interpretation and the law that so objec- without was admitted ter evidence Josephine long Mary during was born was corroborated year tion. (common law), lawful she could witness. Garcia, a disinterested Gillermo even if she was not in take fact the child of that he among things other testified He Paulus. This not the Claude was testatrix’s he when guide business in the tourist was intent! in Mexico which and Lilia met Claude first ob- without introduction for the Except putting He testified inwas (see heirship foot- affidavit of jection of lawyer and with a contact Lilia a valid some 1) which was note with him to Atiza- parties taking all of Mary Josephine time to the marriage prior were the documents Zaragoza where pan de judg- conceived, affirm I would was alleged mar- with in connection issued the trial court.. ment that she saw Claude testified Lilia riage.