Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1864-07-14
The Wiley.Brown Case.

A1OAA NE"Se
| The Wiley. Brown Case.
| The following were the instruc ctions given to
| the Jury Sy Justice WyAe, in the case Of Wiley
vs Brown, case that has attracted considera-
BILE attention in the community:
Gentlemen OF the Jury: The issues which
| have been sent from the Orphans Court and
| which you have sworn to try In this case, are
| three in number:
| Whether Emily F. Wiley, the plaintiff, was
| the child of Tillotson p. Brown.
| 2Whether Tillotson p. Brown was ever mar
ried to Mrs. Elizabeth Brown, the mother OF
| the said Emily F. Wiley.
Whether subsequently to said marriage iii
such marriage took place, the said Tillotson p.
Brown acknowledged the said Emily F. Wiley
| These issues are questions Of fact, which the
Orphans Court, not being itself mpetent TO
determine, has sent to this court to be deter
| mined by jury-the only constitutional tri-
bunal in which such questions can be tried.
| Property to q large amount, as well as other
| considerations OF great interest and importance
to the parties, are involved in the result.
Aside from the mere pecuniary consideration,
| the question whether your verdict shall fix the
| stigma Of bastardy upon Mrs. Wiley, and OF
| dishonor upon her mother upon the one hand,
| or shall have the effectof removing in a meas
| ure from the latter the stain which may have
heretofore rested upon her reputation, and en-
| graft upon the family Of Jesse Brown as a le-
gidmate shoot from strange vine the daugh.
| 3er Of Mrs. Brown, are considerations Of the
| very deepest interest to the parties on both
| sides Their feelings have become excited, and
| all the evidence which wealth or industry
could procure, and allthe exertions OF most
able counsel for the respective parties have
been employed, these many days, in the trial
OF this interesting case.
To enable the plaintiffs to succeed, it is nee.
essary they should succeed upon each one of
Emily F. Brown was born in this city on the
31st day Of March, 1895. Her mother at that
time had never been married.
Tillotson p. Brown was married to Mrs.
Brown, the mother Of Emily, on the 10th No.
AS to these two facts there is no conflict in
evidence, and they have been conclusively
proved.
edly illegitimate.
She now claims that she subsequently be-
came legitimate by the intermarriage which
took place in 1850 between her mother and TIL
lotson r. Brown, by his acknowledgment after
the marriage that she was his child, and by
the fact that she was indeed his own begotten
child.
To make out her case all Of these facts must
be established.
The act OF Maryland which controls the sub.
Ject is in the following words:
'1f 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 capable in law to inherit and transmit in.
heritance as il born in wedlock."
In making your inquiries in this case, you
will probably find 1t convenient, as well as
logical, to pursue them in the following order:
1st. The marriage;
2d. The acknowledgment subsequent to mar.
Sd. The fact OF paternity.
AS to the first, the. marriage, there is now no
room for controversy.
> AS to the second: the acknowledgment after
the marriage, required by the act OF Assembly.
The acknowledgement must be thatshe was his
child-not an adopted child, but his own child
his own offspring. rv .-- -,-r.....
been habitual, deliberate, and in the face Of the
writing, by his conduct, and by his trestment nj
of her.
will not say that his declarations musthave
been absolutely uniform on this subject. If at
any time, from caprice, or with view of car
gain or loss on his part, or other advantages, he
occasionally denied that she was his child, you
viii weigh these declarations or conduct
against those OF an opposite character, and de.
eide for>or against the acknowledgment as you
may fnd the preponderance Of the evidence to
lotson T. Brown, after the marriage, to ac-
knowledge her as his own child, before the
world. it will be your duty to find the issue
But ii you find, from the evidence, that this
acknowledgment was made, your next inquiry
will be as to the paternity OF Emily, which is
the last and most important inc niry in the case
II Tillotson p. Brown, did in fact, after his
marriage to her mother, acknowledge the child
as his, such acknowledgment Is nevertheless
not conclusive against the defendants. He
may show notwiths ding, that such was
not indeed the fact But on a question of pa
ternity, his acknowledgment, il you find such
to have been made, would be a fact of great
weight, which 1T would require very strong
evidence on the other side to overcome I will
not say it would create a presumption or es-
stopped against the defendant, for the weight
OF evidence belongs to yourselves to decide
The Court can instruct you as to points OF law
only.
Even in the case Of a child born in wedlock
acknowledgment On the part OF the reputed
father is not conclusive. Its legitimacy NAV
be called in question in the courts, and colIat.
e-al heirs may show by evidence that although
knowledged by its reputed father to be his
own child, that in point OF fact it mad actually
been begotten by another man.
The old law OF England was that unless the
absence OF the reputed father beyond seas could
be shown, about the period OF possible concep.
ton, the presumption was conclusive in favor
OF legitimacy. But in modern times the courts
have relaxed the rule, and the fact NAV now
be investigated by means OF evidence in regard
to all the circumstances Of the case.
On this question, whether Tillotson p.
have heard very large amount Of evidence
on both sides. Much OF it Is conflicting, and
not a little absolutely incredible. 1t is YOUR
task to compare, slit, weigh, and consider it
all. The presumption in the first place. is that
every witness will speak the truth. But if
you have discovered in the course Of this pro-
tracteQ trlal that Witnesses hA We cOntradlcted
themselves in material points, or that their |
evidence is opposed by other evidences in the |
canse the truth OF which you cannot doubt, |
those witnesses are unworthy of your belief.
1t could not, however, be expected that wit.
nesses Of the most unimpeachable credit called |
upon to testify, after the lapse Of thirty years,
should all agree with each other in the circum. |
stances surrounding any transaction; and the !
fact is no dlsparagement Of their integrity, il |
their testimony be irreconcileable in regard to |
lmmaterial circumstances of the case. Indeed |
were they to exhibit a perfect concurrence in |
every particular, the fact would be almost 1
conclusive evidence Of their corruption. But /
in every trial there are few main controlling /
questions as well Of fact as law; and in regard l
to those Of fact the witness must concur, else |
it will be the duty OF the jury to decide between
them, and give credit to those whose state.
ments they believe to be most consistent with
other undoubted facts, and the nature of things
Witness, also, may be equally honest but not
equally intelligent The judgment, powers OF
observation, and memory Of one, may be great. |
lv supprior those another with yUhoso |