Daisy Lee Wade, 14, shows off a bike she won in a contest to name a bicycle. Her winning entry: A Master Chaser.
May 8, 1947: Tony Rice and Azelia Barthelmy (sometimes Berthlemy) were married by the Catholic Church of St. Charles Parish, La., on Jan. 8, 1914. They had seven children before he deserted her in 1931.
The couple bought a home in 1919 and Azelia remained there for 28 years. On Feb. 28, 1937, she declared that the property on Lot 5 of the Gilbert Darensbourg’s Place at Killona, St. Charles Parish was “a family home.” But on Oct. 7, 1946, Tony sold the property to Helen Ryan.
Azelia charged that as Tony’s wife and the occupant of the property, she needed to agree to the sale of the house. But according to Louisiana law, marriages between whites and blacks were illegal. Because Tony was white and Azelia was black the Louisiana courts ruled that they had never been married and ordered her to vacate the house.
“Asked by attorney A.F. Tureaud why he married a colored woman, Rice stated he did so as a young man and didn’t know he was violating state laws,” the Sentinel said.
The ruling was upheld by the Louisiana Court of Appeal, Nov. 3, 1947.
ladailymirror.com 
I was trying to find out more about this story, and not much came up, so I gambled and asked Bing’s AI. It summarized the case but without anything about racial issues, and when I pointed that out, it loudly stated there was nothing in the legal record about race–just a reference to a sharecroppers’ law that would apparently prevent illegal squatting on a property. I was thinking the only record of the case that AI notices is from a Nov. 3, 1947, appeal summary, which on first glance leaves out all mention of race (it might show more with a subscription). [https://case-law.vlex.com/vid/ryan-v-barthelmy-18723-898359420] But then I poked AI a bit, and it suddenly admitted that race *was* a factor in the case:
“In the legal records for the case Ryan v. Barthelmy, involving Azelia Barthelmy, there is an explicit mention of race relating to marriage law. The court opinion states:
‘The law is of that rigorous nature that it will not permit a marriage to exist between persons of two different races for a moment. No suit is needed to declare the nullity of such a union.’
“This language directly references interracial marriage, asserting that a marriage between individuals of different races is legally null and void by operation of law, without requiring a separate judicial declaration. This is the explicit mention of race in the case records.
“Source: Casemine, Ryan v. Barthelmy, 32 So.2d 467 (La. Ct. App. 1947) [Index 2].”
[Here is another link to that case, which includes more info: https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914a172add7b04934689376%5D
I don’t know if I’m reading too much into this, but it felt like the AI engine was trying to cover up the racial issues at first.
LikeLiked by 1 person
This is an encore post that I wrote a while back and I have no memory of it. My source material was the Los Angeles Sentinel, one of the Black newspapers in Los Angeles. It’s available online via the Los Angeles Public Library, and possibly elsewhere.
LikeLike
This is a gross miscarriage of justice, 7 children should have been considered, that’s their home. And here is another mess from that callous, brutal era. Was she Negro or Native American, being Negro was an upgrade. My grandmother, full blood Native is listed in census papers as nego, and my grandpa was French, hey that should not have been allowed either by these unethical ideas in This case.It would be interesting to see a lawsuit now, from the descendants.They have a good case. Desertion, home was filed after rice left. That is the case.
LikeLike
Tony bounced on the family in ’31. Who paid the property taxes on the house up to 1947? If Mrs. Rice (Barthelmy) paid the taxes – you’d think that would have established some ownership rights. Very sad story.
LikeLike
It is indeed. I wrote this story in 2018 based on what was in the Los Angeles Sentinel and I have no more information than what’s published here.
LikeLike