_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._