VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Friday, April 17, 12:39:57pm [ Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 1, 2, 3, [4], 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 ]

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Date Posted: Sunday, December 16, 02:42:25am
Author: Lij
Author Host/IP: adsl-99-14-208-117.dsl.bltnin.sbcglobal.net / 99.14.208.117
Subject: OH MY GAWD!!!! Evidence, circumstantial as it may be is building up.
In reply to: Lij 's message, "Chani.... may I ask a favor?" on Thursday, December 13, 12:05:17pm

I found the above 1853 record of Camille Englebert in Antwerp (the Antwerp Police Immigration Index). He was in the company of a D. C. Steyn Parve, who might have been a Netherlander/Belgian author who wrote books about the history of Italy??

This Camille Englebert was 30 years old in 1853 (fits a birth in 1823) and from Glimes in Brabant, Belgium. Glimes is 6+ miles east-southeast of Bonlez, the Boulanger home. Is this him!?!? If so, where did the name "de Buisseret" come in? He is a "docteur en droits" which freely translates as 'doctor in rights' but I think means 'doctor of laws.' One of our family stories about him stated he had studied the law (at La Sorbonne). I am guessing that if he did study law and this is him, then he studied at Leuven (Louvain).

There is the ENGLEBERT family in Glimes. He had a sister named Pauline who married a GODEFROID. And then I found the following court case which seems to confirm the family stories that our ancestor set up his sister with an income before he left for America. But it got her in trouble....

----------------------

ENGLEBERT-GODFROID COURT CASE

PREUVE TESTIMONIALE. - Preuve contraire. - Fraude. - Act authentique. - Foi.

On peut prouver par temoins contre et outre le contenu a un acte authentique, si la demande de preuve se produite en termes de preuve contraire de la fraude dont l'act est argue, fraude que l'on demande egalement a etablire par temoins. (Code civil, article 1341).

Ainsie, lorsqu'un acte authentique de vente d'immeubles est attaque du chef de fraude et vilete de prix,, circonstances dont on demande a etablir la preuve par temoins, l'acquereur peut, a son tour, demander a justifier par la meme voie que le prix reel paye est superieur a celui mentionne a l'acte.

(Godefroid, - C., Delbrassine.)

Par exploit du 16 novembre 1855, le sieur Gillis, curateur a la faillite Delbrassine et compagnie, fit assigner devant le tribunal de Nivelles le sieur Godefroid et la demoiselle Englebert, pour voir declarer que certaine vente, consentie par le siur Camille Englebert, de sa part indivise dans le immeubles provenant de leur mere commune, au profit desdit Godefroid et Pauline Englebert, par acte notarie due 24 avril 1853, est nulle et non avenue comme faite a vil prix et dans l'intention evidente d'enrichir sa soeur et son beau-frere Godefroid au prejudice de ses autres creanciers, et la position de leur frere. Divers faits furent poses a l'appui de cette demande.

Les Defendeurs poserent, avec offre de preuve par toutes voies legales, meme par temoins, entre autres faits, que le prix reel de la vente dont il s'agit avait ete de 72,000 francs qqui ont ete payes comptant, a savoir, 42,000 francs par la demoiselle Englebert, en deduction des sommes qu'elle avait pretees a son frere, et 30,000 francs par le sieur Godefroid, au moyen de 25,000 francs en especes et d'un effet de 5,000 francs; que les biens ne valaient pas davantage, etc.; que les prets vantes etaient reels.

Jugement du 21 fevrier 1856 que admet le curateur a preuve, par tous moyens de droit et par expertise quant a la valeur des immeubles vendus, de divers faits et notamment que les defendeurs n'avaient pas d'interet d'acheter les biens de Camille Englebert, vu qu'ils etaient eloignes et loues a bas prix ; que biens ne sont pas portes a leur juste valeur ; que Godefroid, etant dans le commerce, avait plus besoin d'argent que d'immeubles. La preuve contraire est reservee. Appel de Godefroid seul, le curateur ayant transige avec la demoiselle Englebert.



Godefroid soutient que le prix de 72,000 francs etait le prix que le locataire attribuait au bien ; qu'il avait emprunte au notaire Lebon 15,000 frankcs, a Beauthier 10,000 francs et avait signe un billet a ordre de 5,000 francs pour parfaire le prix d'achat ; que les biens ne valaient pas davantage, tant a cause de leur qualite qu'a cause du bail qui les greve et qui n'expire qu'en 1865, et il concluait a ce que la demand originaire fut declaree non recevable ne fondee. Subsidiairement il posait les faits deduits plus haut et demandait a en faire preuve par temoins.

ARRET

LA COUR; - Attendu que les circonstances de la cause ne permettent pas, dans l'etat ou elle se trouve, d'admettre des a present l'existence de la fraude dans le chef de deux parties contractantes, mais que l'ensemble des faits poses par l'intime peut servir a l'etablir;

Attendu que les faits articules par l'appelant dans un ordre subsidiaire, combines entre eux, sont pertinents, en ce qu'ils combattent directement l'existence de la fraude;

Attendu qu'en matiere de fraude, toute preuve direct pouvant se faire par tous moyens de droit, tant a l'egard des differentes circonstances de la fraude qu'a celui des actes pretendus frauduleux, il doit en etre de meme en ce qui touche la preuve contraire;

Attendu que l'intime etayant au besoin son systeme de fraude sur une absence partielle de prix de vente, l'appelant doit entre entier dans ses moyens de preuve sur ce point;

Que vainement l'intime soutient qu'on ne saurait prouver par temoins au dela du contenu d'un acte authentique fixant un prix de vent, puisque la preuve contraire sur ce point n'est presentee que dans l'ordre de combattre un moyen de fraude, base sur une pretendue absence partielle de prix, que l'intime pourrait etablir par tous moyens de droit;

Attendu, au surplus, que les faits poses par l'appelant trouvent au besoins un commencement de preuve par ecrite dans la transaction passee entre l'intime et Pauline Englebert qui etaite in cause avec l'appelant devant le premier juge (ladite transaction homologuee le 19 juin 1856, par le tribunal de Nivelles, dument enregistree);

Par ces motifs, M. le premier avocat general Cloquette entendu en son avis conforme met l'appel incident a neant; et statuant sur l'appel principal, sans s'arreter aux conclusions principales de l'appelant dont il est deboute, met le jugement dont appel a neant, en tant seulemont qu'il n'a pas admis l'appelant a prouver, en termes de preuve contraire, les faits par lui articules; emenddant, quant a ce, admet l'appelant a prouver par tous moyens de drout, meme par temoins, etc.

Du 12 aout 1856. - Cour de Bruxelles. - 1re ch. - Pl. MM. Mascart, Duvigneaud et Leharde de Beaulieu.
______________________________________________________

TESTIMONY. - Evidence to the contrary. - Fraud. - Act authentic. - Faith.

It can be proved by witnesses against and also the content has a deed, if the request for evidence is produced in terms of contrary evidence of fraud whose act is argued, that the fraud was also asked by etablire witnesses. (Civil Code, Article 1341).

Ainsie when deed of sale of real property is the chief attack fraud and vileness of price, circumstances demand that we establish proof by witnesses, the purchaser may, in turn, seek to justify the same way that the actual price paid is higher than that stated to the act.

(Godefroid - C. Delbrassine).

By writ dated 16 November 1855, Mr. Gillis, curator of the bankruptcy Delbrassine and Company was assigned to the Court of Nivelles Mr. Godefroid and Miss Englebert to see some declare that sale, made by Mr Camille Englebert, their (his? - Fr. 'de sa') undivided share in the property from their mother shared, for the benefit desdit Godfrey and Pauline Englebert, by notarial deed due April 24, 1853, is null and void as a cheaply made and the obvious intention to enrich its (his) sister and brother-in- law Godefroid prejudice to their/his other creditors, and the position of their brother. Poses various facts were in support of this application.

The Defendants rested with evidence offered by all prescribed by law, even by witnesses, among other facts, that the real price of the sale in question had been 72,000 francs were paid in cash, ie, 42.000 francs by the girl Englebert, a deduction of sums which it (she) had lent to his (her) brother, and 30,000 francs by Mr. Godfrey, with 25,000 francs in cash and a note of 5,000 francs, the goods were not worth more, etc. .; loans that were lowing real.

Judgment of 21 February 1856 as the curator admits evidence, by all legal means and expertise as to the value of the property sold, various facts including that the defendants had no interest to buy (the) goods (of) Camille Englebert, as they were distant and rented at cheap, that goods are not doors at their fair value as Godefroid, being in the trade, had more money than necessary buildings. Evidence to the contrary is reserved. Call only Godefroid, curator having dealings with the girl Englebert.

Godfrey maintains that the price of 72,000 francs was the price attributed to the tenant well, that he had borrowed from/(lent to) the notary Lebon 15,000 francs, to Beauthier 10,000 francs and had signed a promissory note for 5,000 francs to complete the purchase price and that the property was not worth more, both because of their quality has because of the strike and lease which expires in 1865, and it was concluded that the original demand was not declared inadmissible founded. Alternatively he asked deducted above facts and asked to make a proof by witnesses.

OFF

THE COURT - Whereas the circumstances of the case did not, in the state where it is, this has to admit the existence of fraud on the part of both contracting parties, but all made by the intimate poses can be used to establish;

Whereas the facts articulated by the appellant in the alternative, combined together, are relevant in that they directly combat the existence of fraud;

Whereas in matters of fraud, any direct evidence may be made by any legal means, as has the respect of the different circumstances of the fraud that has ALLEGED fraudulent acts, it must be the same with respect to evidence to the contrary;

Whereas the necessary intimate and with its system of fraud partial absence of sale, the appellant must between the world in its (his) evidence on this point;

Vain(ly) that intimate argues that it (his) witnesses to prove beyond the contents of a deed setting a sale price, as contrary evidence on this point is presented in order to fight a way fraud, based on an alleged partial absence of price that could establish intimate by any lawful means;

Whereas, moreover, that the facts posed by the caller needs to find a prima facie written by the transaction entered into between the intimate and Pauline Englebert who was in dispute with the appellant before the trial judge (the transaction homologuee the June 19, 1856, by the Court of Nivelles, duly registered);

For these reasons, The First Advocate General Cloquette heard his assent, puts the appeal was nil, and acting on the main appeal, without stopping the main conclusions of the calling which he is dismissed, is the judgment appealed from was nil, as it has not only allowed the appellant to prove in terms of evidence to the contrary, the facts articulated by him; as to what émendant(past part verb: émender?) admits the appellant to prove by any means law, even by witnesses, etc..

August 12, 1856. - Court of Brussels. - 1st c. - MM Pl. Mascart Duvigneaud Leharde and Beaulieu.
________________________________________

Two years late for you mom, but I think I have actually found him.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:

[> [> I have to find the records of this notary of the contract.... I would suspect it could be - the notary Lebon from which he borrowed 15,000 francs -- Lij, Sunday, December 16, 02:48:09am (adsl-99-14-208-117.dsl.bltnin.sbcglobal.net/99.14.208.117)

This is a real detective story..... and it has my blood boiling.


[ Edit | View ]


[ Contact Forum Admin ]

Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.