Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1863-06-30

street cars; resolution instructing the com.
mittee on wharves to inquire into the expedi.
ency OF appointing harbor Master to regulate
vessels; bill to improve N street from Fifth to
Seventh street; to set curbstone and lay footway
on l. street south, between Seventh and Ninth
streets east; fer the relief OF G.. Eslin; relating
to the pay OF assessors; lay water main on
Twelfth street from street to Massachusetts
avenue, and along l. street to Eleventh; for
cleaning and whitewashlng the Western Mar
ket; resolution for the continuance of the spe-
cial committee ON the Mayors communication
OF January 10, 1868, in reference to the contract
for gas.
water main on II street, from Third to Fifth
streets west.
Mr.. G. Wilson moved to amend by striking
out Fifth" and insert Sixth street.
Mr.. Shepherd moved to insert stand so much
further as he may deem necessary to give a
sufficient flew of water" The bill as amended
was passed.
Tue chair announced Messrs Shepherd, Ruff
and H. q. Wilson as the committee on the gas
light contract, and Mr. Barr on the improve
ment-o the canal. -
The chair stated that he had been requested
to invite the members of the Board to assemble
at the City Hall on the morning of the 9TH of
July, to join in the celebration of that day.
Adjourned.
THE CASE OF WILEY Us. BRowN.-The trial
of the ISIS ues from the Orphans Court in rela-
ton to the estate of the late Tilietson F. Brown
was commenced in the, Circuit Court before
Judge Cartier yesterday.
Mr.. Smith, on opening4the case, addressed in
substances the jury as follows: You have been
empanneled to try an Issue seat to this court
by the Orphans Court, District of Columbia,
to enable that court to make distribution of the
assets in the hands of the admin stratrix of the
estate of Tilletson F. Brown deceased
The parties to this issue are John Wiley and
Emily f., his wife, who claim that the said
Emily is the daughter of the said Tiletson L.
Brown, on the one side, and on the other, Mar
shall Brown, the brother of Tilletson F. Brown,
los Is.tT ,hnxr DfT
who together claim to be entitled to distribu-
tive share of this estate, as the next of kin to
the deceased. Jesse b. Haw having died since
his answer was put in, without leaving ISSUE
is not now party to this proceedings; and
George Is. Prentice, another nephew, has filed
no answer, and takes no part in this issue.
Tilletson Z. Brown died in this city on the
Doth Of December, 1861 and on the l1th of JAN
uary, 1862, letters of administration were grant
ed 10 his widow, Elizabeth Brown, who gave
security, administered upon the effects of the
estate, and has made final settlement of her
accounts as administrative, showing a balance
in her hands for distribution.
Inc parties to this suit claim TO be entitled to
respective portions of this balance under the
interstate laws of this District Mrs. Wiley, rs
the child and heir, and the other parties as the
next OF kin Of the said deceased, and in order
TO enable the Orphans Court to make proper
distribution OF the fund, this issue has been
certified to this court. and you have been sworn
to decide ii.
Upon the application of the Orphans Court,
In behalf OF Mrs. Wiley, and the nswers of
Marshal Brown and Jesse B. KaW,is were
framed and certified to this court, and the
questions submitted for adjudication are:
lst. W neither the petitioner, Emily ]. Wiley,
Is The child Of TiiletsoH F. Brown, deceased.
I'd Whether the said Tilletson +. Brown was
ever married to the mother of the said Emily
J. Wiley.
Sd. Whether the said Tilletson F. Brown ever
acknowledged the said Emily TO be his child
MIR. Brent-I, representing Mrs Wiley, con-
tend for the affirmative of these issues, and we
propose to show to the court and jury by the
most competent and satisfactory evidence that
Mrs. Wiley is the child of T. F. Brown that
Mrs. Elizabeth Brown, the mother of Mrs. Wi
ley, was the wife of the said T. F. Brown, be-
tween whom contract of marriage existed
prior TO the birth of the said child, though the
formal celebration of the marriage was suisse
quently to the said birth; that T. f Brown, DO IN
before and after the formalitles of this 81 bsa.
quent marriage, declared that the said Emily
r. Wiley was his child, and that under the Ia W.
as applicable TO this case, she is his legtim ts
child.
The facts of this case as they will appear In
evidence, are these: Tilletson F. Brown, who
was the eldest son of the late Jesse Brown, the
original proprietor of Browns Hotel in this
city, in early lite became acquainted with
Elizabeth Phillips, and the intimacy resulted
IN 4 reciprocal attachment, and would soon
have been followed by a formal public mar
rIage OF the parties but for the opposition to it
on the part OF the father and family of Mr.
Brown. and the fear that the father would dis
ms wishes as to consummate a marriage with
Miss Phillips.
The attachment was ardent and sincere and
so strong that the parties as they undoubtedly
haG right to do, agreed TO assume the relation
OF husband and wife, by q mutual contract en-
tered into between them, prior to cohabitation
as such. and they determined to live together
privately as man and wife, and wait for an au-
splciOus time to announce their union tn The
world, when it could be done without incur
rlnG the parental dlspleasure or the penalties
OF dlslh heritance. In pursuance of this con-
tract OF marriage they cohabted together as
husband and wife, and in due course OF time
as the natural consequence of that cohabita-
1on, child was born on the Dist March, 1895
we snail show you by the testimony of the
physician who officiated at the acconchment
that that child is the plaintiff in this issue,
Emily F. Wiley
The child was always regarded by him As
ms daughter, and from her birth was known
by his name. She was sent to school by him.
and all her expenses of boarding and tuition
PAID by him. After she became the mother of
q family, her children were recognized by him
as his grandchildren. In his conversations
with his friends in regard to the disposition of
ms estate IN the event of his death he declared
his determination to leave what he had IN his
wife and child.
Mr.. and Mrs Brown having lived together
privately several years as husband and wife,
did not deem it essential to go through the
forms OF marriage. The law on the subject
is as follows:
''And be it enacted, that if any man shall
have one or more children by any woman
whom he shall afterwards marry, such child
or children, if acknowledged by the man, shall
in virtue OF such marriage and acknowledge
ment be hereby legitimated and capable in law
TO inherit and transmit inheritance as if born in
wedlock."
MIR. Smith addressed the jury at considerable
length, after which number of witnesses were
examined ~
DIR. Condict testified to the birth of the child
In 1885, and to his being called on to attend
Mrs Brown. "A written statement signed by
Or. y. was handed to the witness for examina-
tion.) Witness continued: The body of the
certificate is in my handwriting; the paper is
dated April "a, 1919; Mrs. Brown employed me
to attend her my first visit was in the latter
part Of 1884. (The signature of T. f. Brown is
also upon the certificate, and was admitted by
Mr.. Bradley Witness continued: Had fire.
quently seen Mr.. Brown; recoilect that Emily
went by the name Of Brown; Mr.. Brown
always called her Emily recollect on one &C.
casion he was anxious to send her to school he
called her Emily.
Mr.. Brent, for the plaintiff, said that the
paper was offered as evidence on two grounds:
First-the identity Ofthe child; we are entitled
to prove the birth of the child and the iden tity
it is question of the legitimacy of the child
Judge Cartier decided that the paper could
not be used as evidence, as long as the wit
nesses lived, and was not to go to the Jury as
proof of its contents. (The paper was read by