DON FRANCISCO SALOMON FONTENELLE VS. DON JUAN FONTENELLE Plaquemines Parish Louisiana
Submitted BY: Gladys Stovall Armstrong 



**********************************************
Copyright.  All rights reserved.
http://usgwarchives.net/copyright.htm
http://usgwarchives.net/la/lafiles.htm
**********************************************
  


( SON SUES FATHER FOR PERMISSION TO MARRY)

This document is on file at the Louisiana State Museum and someone 
has done a short translation. Unfortunately they did not name the 
"Noble Ancestor".

File # 147
Feb 16, 1787
Judge: Don Estevan MIRO
Court Clerk: Don RAFAEL

Perdomo
Pages 1 to 58
Spanish & French


Doc. No. 1487 Box 48 - Case Of 
Don Francoisco Salomon FONTENELLE
VS
Don Juan Baptista FONTENELLE

The plaintiff, a resident of the lower coast, duly emancipated by
the Royal Justice, petitioned the Court alleging that petioner is 
betrothed to Franciosa BARROIS, also a resident of the lower coast, 
and that in order to be able to contract the intended matrimony, 
petitioner requested his father, the defendant, to grant him the 
neccessary authorization; that the defendant refused, alleging that 
there is disparity between the lineage of the petitioner and that 
of his prospective wife; petitioner also alleges that by virtue of 
the betrothal already performed he considers himself and his prospective 
wife obliged to marry, disregarding whatever slight disparity may exist 
in their linage, their true intention being to be lawfully united in 
order to prevent the unpleasant consequences which will probaly arise 
from the unfulfilment of their marriage. Wherefore, petitioner begs the 
Court to order the defendant to openly state the reasons he has for 
denying the requested authorization, and once he has done so to let 
petitioner know them in order that he may institute whatever action is 
necessary for the accomplishment of his just purpose.
The court ordered that the defendant be given a copy of the plaintiff's 
petition.

The defendant, in answer to the plaintiff's petition, alleged that 
the reason why he does not consent to the marriage of the plaintiff, 
his son, to Franciosa BARROIS, is that the plaintiff descends from 
noble Ancestry as he will prove in due time, where as the plaintiff's 
prospective wife is the daughter of a tavern-keeper, as it is publicly 
known, Wherefore, the defendant begs the Court to dismiss the plaintiff's
suit on the grounds that petitioner can not and will not under any 
circumstance or pretext grant the authorization solicited for the above 
stated reason and based upon the Royal Orders which forbid the performance
of any marriage without the consent of the parents of the peson who intend 
to marry, if there is a just reason for denying such consent.

By Order of the Court, the plaintiff was given a copy of the defendent's 
answer to his petition.

After several petitions and allegations were made by both parties 
whereby they attempted to justify their contentions through witnesses 
and various documents, the plaintiff alleging that the parents and 
family of his intended wife were of unquestionable moral character, 
and the defendant arguing that they were far below his son's class, 
the Court rendered final judgement in favor of the defendant stating 
that he did prove his exceptions while the plaintiff did not prove 
his allegations, and sentenhim to suffer the penalty imposed by the 
law of Aprip 7, 1778, for cases of the nature of the present, and to 
pay the cost of these proceedings.

The record shows that the plaintiff accepted and compiled with the 
judgement rendered by the Court and that upon petition from the 
defendant, he was given a certified copy of said judgemeny.
( My note)
It seems that the plaintiff did not quite accept the decision of the
 Court as he and Franciosa BARROIS eloped!!! As recorded in the book 
"The Catholic Church in Louisiana" By Roger BAUDIER: 

MIRO, in 1787, notified the Bishop through Father SEDELLA, that 
Father Mariano de BRUNETE, the newly appointed pastor of ST. Bernard 
of Terre-Aux-Boeufs, " in contempt of the warnings of the Sacred 
Council of Trent on clandestine marriages and the warnings of the 
pragmatic Sanction of His Majesty of 1776" Which demanded the peternal 
consent or its alternative, and despite a formal impediment which had
been interposed by Don Juan Bautista MERCIER amd laid before the pastor,
and despite the fact that the case was pending before MiRO's Tribunal, 
and that he was not the pastor of either contracting party, proceeded 
to marry them. The contracting parties were DON JUAN FONTENELLE AND 
FRANCISCA BARUA ( Barrois) , The father, ROBERT JUAN FONTENELLE, 
Captain of the Militia, had sought to prevent the marriage and had 
presented the complaint to MIRO, All this notwithstanding, Father 
MARIANO had married the couple. MIRO, angered over the whole affair, 
demanded the removal of Father MARRIANO and asked that the Bishop take 
most energetic means to prevent recurrance of such abuses. Father de 
SEDELLA promptly suspended Father MARIANO from exercising pastoral 
function for marrying pashioners who belonged to the parish of Father 
de SEDELLA and not to ST. Bernard.


The Couple seemd to have had good marriage and had ten children
( G.A,)