New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1884-05-04
NOT JACQUES, BUT CARLOS.
REFEREE wICKEs DECIDES THAT sIvILLAB DowN
ING IS NOT TIE MOTHER or THE DIsPU lL

REFEREE wICKEs DECIDES THAT sIvILLAR Down.
ING Is NOT TIE MOTHER OF THE DISPUTED
CHILD.
Referee Thomas p. Wickes reported TO the
Supreme Court yesterday that he had concluded that the
boy Carlos Wilson the child OF Emma Zsfrs Wilson
| and not the offspring of sivillar and Forrest =.
Downing. The referee states his belief that
Sivilar Downing perfectly honest in her assertion
that she believed that her boy Jacques had died
and been buried in the Cemetery OF the Evergreens in
August 1882, and that Carlos Wilson was the real
Jacques Mr. wickes unable to see any resemblance ~
Carlos and Forrest Downing OF the result OF his
examination OF the "long and slender" toes Of
Syiar Downing and OF those of Carlos, the referee
81 could Rot detect the slightest similarity be-
tween them" The conclusion was reached regard.
ing the alleged similarity OF the finger motions Of
Carlos and Of young Mr.. Downing A microscopic
nation Of the photograph OF Mr.. Downing, when child.
showed that tho peculiar folding Of the fingers due
attempt TO cover up plaster placed the nger he
OF cut The lock of hair cutrom Jacquess bead
the day be born. the referee concludes could not
from the head OF Carlos because Il OF df
ferent character and quality The hair from the head Of
Jacques was silky and elastic - the other was coarse.
stiff and brittle. 4"
The Identity OF the coffin which Mrs. Downing caused
TO be- dug up held to be improved The proof OF tho
identity Of Carlos Wilson Ia considered as made valid by
the birth mark the third toe OF his foot well by
witnesses The death Of the child OF syllar Downing in
August 1882 Is stated 70 have been established be-
yond any reasonable doubt"
An interesting part Of the report follows one
circumstance however Is worth mentioning. on April
= Dr. Demer. In describing tho enid, said that he
sembled his father she did not know the
dydua whom she thus referred where he resided,
what his business profession be had told her.
however when lie had visited Mrs. Wilson dur ing her
confinement that he the boys father and Mrs wilson
had called MIN her friend on q subsequent day Pro-
fessor Belar testified that he had visited Mrs Wilson
DR.. Diemer's tue day her child born
and several times thereafter, and the day
when the testimony closed DR.. Diemer was
recalled aud stated that since giving her
former testimony she had learned that the peraon whom
she had presumed 10 be the boys father Professor
Bela was struck by the resemblance OF the child 70
pearance as witness; and on the Gath OF April wheh
Mrs Hanny and no met at my Office 10 sign their testi.
mony had opportunity 20 him and the child side
be fortuous, and II II were fact standing by itself
would attach the least Importance TO it for this
ter OF resemblance lie. in my Judgment often purely
particular Observer but coupled with tho stortef
OF Mrs. Wilson and DR.. Dana, II affords additional
means OF Identification and supplies test which an ems
tire stranger apply. do not Wish 10 be understood
as finding that Professor Bean is the father OF tee
ebndI do not make any such fading All say Is thas
am able 10 perceive the resemblance first spoken OF ~
Dr. Deme- between the child 10 court aud certain per-
son then stranger TO her but whom sue subsequently
identified as Professor Belait."
The referee concludes: entertain no DOUBT tnat the
child in court the child Carlos Wilson, who WAS born
on May 9, 1882, and that the woman called Emma DC
Zafra Wilson Ia his mother"