The Indianapolis sentinel. [volume] (Indianapolis, Ind.) 1880-1904, 1885-05-16

a Child I'm search of q Father aud q For
lohicago Tribune


Iohicago Tribune
very small child with q very long name
Gertrude Frances Wilhelmins Rollar-is
complainant IN an equity suit to establish
her identity and get the property of Gottlieb
Friedrich William Rollar, whose daughte she
Claims to be. As the claimant is not yet two
years OF ago. and is described as ''ths west
baby ever born alive" she can not be said to
take On active interest in the matter hersslf
but one Axel Chytraus represents her as next
friend. The will of Gottlieb was proba at
ter his death In February, 1888. and the
Court found that he died childless. B the
will ell his property was left to his m ,thsr
his brother and his sister, who are ma ie de.
PENDANTS to TIE present bill. The claim of
Gertrude to be posthumous child requires
some examination OF the evidence al
ready taken in the case. from viii ,h the
following particulars appear:
In May. 1877, Gottlieb Rollar, the tesator
took one Ida King to be the companion of
his bed and board. There seems to have
been no formal marriage ceremony. bat it is
claimed that mutual promises, and cohaoi.
tation amounted to common Law mar.
riage. At ali events. Ida King was after
ward known as Ida RolIar, ana was by some
reputed to have lawful claim to that name
Gottiieb died February Z, 1885, leaving real
estate valued at So co., and personal roper
ty rather more valuable. The compla nsnt
in the bill alleges that she was born aoou.
four mon tbs later. but that her father pa
rents and other relatives, all of whom lived
IN Buffalo, formed al insidious y OF 30 de-
bar her OF her legal portion. They res IN ed
her fathers will fJr probate, she says and,
by the payment OF q round sum- bribed
Ida Rollar to admit that she was never
the lawful wife OF tina tesiator. This at
least, is sure, that she presantsd clsin of
81. 500 for her services as housekeeper, aud
thereby virtually edmitted that shs had no
claim to 3 widows portion. She swears,
however, that she thought shs was getting
TIRE money as willow She mads her AFT
dsvit, to be sure. CT the correctness of thu
claim, but then. shs says. they always make
you swear, asa general thing
The ceiendai IS clsim that Gertrude is q
suppostlious child. and in support OF their
avermspt they ptodacs SOTO potent evi.
dence, from which IL appfa s that Ida Rollar
went 10 the house. OF Mrs Stark, on E yer.
green avenue, June "a, 1885, aud said she
wanted baby to ADOPT Mrs. Stark kept
so called "ly z in hospital aud said she
would procure a. infant for Mrs. Rollar.
Having no elit ible child In the house she
rs,orted to the abode Of Mrs Ida Mueller, 653
West Monroe street, who pursued similar
vocation, and found that new arrival was
expected in Gay or two. The child ca me
to light two days later, June &c 1t IS de.
scribed as q diminutive blonde, with blue
eyes. and a little wart On one ear which, as
in many famous dime romapces mas an in
huence upon the owners destiny quite in
commensurate with Its apparent value. The
mother Of little Gertrude 10 declared by Mrs.
Mueller 10 have been a music teacher, the
daughter of wealthy parents in Kentucky,
and she gave her name as Mary Calvary.
Mrs. Mueller kept record of the births Oc.
curing In her house., however, and in this
the mothers name Is given as Jennis Hest
ing, and that OF the infant as Luella Hesting
When the infant was born, Mrs. Stark came
with her young granddaughter and conveyed
it to the room Of Mrs. Rollar, who had Just
bad still born child. The evidence seems
fatal to the claim of Gertrude. Mrs. Mu4i.
Ter appears TO have known that In order
to get the benefit of her husbands prop
erty she must have living child. Three
witnesses, however-Mrs. Stark and her
daughter and Mrs. Mueller-identifisd the
supposititious child by the unfortunate ear
mark. 20 strong did this evidence appear to
be that the defendant counsel requested
Judge !uley to sign decree finding tnat the
ccmplaipants claim was groundless. He re-.
fused, however. to forestall the usual coarse
Of litigation, and the matter will come up at
future day.
Several circumstances in this little ro-
nance call to mind the more sensational his.
tory of George Peck. whose claims to the es.
tale OF Mrs. Olarisss G. Peck were folly set
forth in the Tribune some months ago. Mrs
Peck, II may be remembered, left some $780,
600 for charitable purposes, and the bay
George afterward turned up, claiming to bs
her grandson and heir. 1t may be proper to
state in this place that the attorneys OF this
youth have by no means abandoned the
the threatened legal proceedings to recover
his alleged rights, but have deferred the mat.
ter from week to week with the pnomentary
expectation, as they declare, of setting the
suit ontoot. Affidavits have been collected
In formidable numbers, and it Is insisted by
them that they have not ths remotest idea
OF abandoning the clsim