The Orleans-Chiappini Case — Joinville V. Newborough
Whereas the plaintiff, in both her birth and baptismal certificates, is described as the daughter of Lorenzo Chiappini, who brought her up as such, and that so she acknowledged herself for nearly fifty years, etc.
That this plainly establishes the fact of her birth and consequent rights, etc.
That the proofs brought forward by the plaintiff amount to no more than the depositions of a few witnesses, whereas the proof should be in writing, etc.
That failing the necessary proofs of affiliation and paternity, the law holds good that given in the birth-certificate, etc.
That, even if the proofs given in evidence were alone sufficient, the witnesses produced by the plaintiff do not plainly report the fact of the substitution, etc.
Moreover, doubt is not dispelled by Chiappini’s declaration, because it is not expressed in authentic or documentary terms, etc.
Finally, that to claim to be the daughter of a certain person not that named in the certificate of birth or shown as in possession, it is necessary to prove that such person has really existed, etc.
For these reasons, it must be held that the claims of the plaintiff be refused, and that she be condemned in all the costs of the trial, etc.