Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1889-08-05

vouchers. Judge Durham said The matter was
very clear TO him and be would undoubtedly
pAss the vouchers when they reached his
Office: reported the result Of my inter-
SCISSOR Fish to 60 ahead and mako bis contract
Mr. Fish gave Il to Mr. George z Walker; why
I do not know. Mr.. Walkers father had the
contract preceding this one. There Ii simply
nothing in this noise. Ny books are ready a
any time"
WHOSE CHILD Is HEP
The Contest for Possession OF Little
Eddie Fisher.
At noon to-day Judge Montgomery, in the
Equity Court room, resumed the hearing Of
the case of Eddie Fisher, the little white boy
claimed BY Amanda Devers to be her child, over
whom there is contest There were large
number of persons present showing interest In
the case. Major J. Med. Darlington appeared
for the petitioner and W. b. h. Hart for Mary
e. Fisher, the respondent.
For the petitioner, Mira DR.. Lewis Of Fairfax
county, testified that the features Of . child
nursed . month are never forgotten by q
mother, and was sure that by lineament and
instinct the mother would know her child.
THE ALLEGED FATHER OF THE CHILD.
For the respondent, Samr Z. Pettingale, the
alleged father, testified that he knew George
Hilton; that he met Miss Devers in 1881 and en-
gagged with Mr.. Hilton for the care of the child
and he (H.) said that he had placed the child
to be raised. He took witness to the neigh
borhood where the child was--the neighbor-
hood Of the Gale school building, New Jersey
and Massachusetts, avenues Hilton had subse-
quently informed witness that the child was
dead and witness gave him money to pay for
the funeral, and Hilton afterwards showed him
the receipt. Witness did not 60 in the house,
but Hilton did, and he came out with tears in
dead" and witness said ''yes."
Witness identified the affidavit of Mr.. Hilton.
Mr.. Hart, in answer to the court, said he
proposed to show that threats were made prior
TO these proceedings
TO PREVENT A SCANDAL.
Mr.. Brooke was recalled and testified that ne
had shown the affidavit to Mr.. Pettingale. and
his object was to prevent scandal, which he
could by restoring the child to Miss Devers.
Mr.. Pettingale resumed the stand and denied
that he had paid any money since that paid for
the funeral, or that he had made any agreement
that the child should be considered dead.
On cross-examination witness said that the
mother was taken to the Franklin house.
DENIES THE CHILD.
witness denied that he bad ever seen the child
before.
Q.-"Does he not have your eyes and fore
head?"
Answer-'T don't think he does"
Witness said the child which died may have
been his, and he believed it was. The child
was about three months old when he under
stood the child had died. He thought that he
nv tbe CONT = W;trose raro;vod O mt. sro,,
Hilton; went to see him, and they went to
Massachusetts and New Jersey avenues, on the
way Hilton telling him that the child died of
cholera infantum. Hilton said that he would
attend to everything. First heard some two or
three weeks since from gentleman that trouble
was brewing.
DR.. Merriam testified that Mrs. Fisher had
o child which was said to have been found in
the capitol about January 1, 1881. In 1882
there were three children at Mrs. Fishers and
one between three and four months old died of
cholera infantum. Witness was under the i'm
preston that it was female child.
Officer Philip Mansfield produced the record
OF the sixth precinct January /. 1881, showing
that "a colored man brought to that station a
colored male child about two months Old
NO RECORD OF DEATH.
J. O. McGinn, chief clerk of the health Office,
testified that search had been made for the
record OF the death Of male child named
Fisher about this time, but failed to find ii.
By the court-There was the record Of the
death of q Mary Fisher at 43 Massachusetts
avenue June 49, 1882.
Miss Fisher was recalled by the court and
testified that Bertha. the girl died about week
before. Never had a child named Mary Fisher.
The corporation buried Bertha. The certificate
OF the death OF Mary was a mistake. The child
referred to in the police record was found on a
bitter cold night. and it was blue with cold and
they could not tell if it was white or colored.
The court suggested that the hospital record
would show the date of birth.
Mr.. Hart said that inquiries had been made
and no record found.
Miss Devers said that she was there under
the name of Mary White, and the court directed
an inquiry TO be made as to the birth Of child
there March
DR.. Merriam was recalled and testified that
the child said to have been found in the Capt.
toll park was a white one He had no knowl-
edge at present of the death Of male child at
the house; knows that there were two other
children at the house.
Mr.. Hilton was recalled and denied that
there was any such thing as shedding tears,
as detailed by Mr.. Petingale.
On cross-examination witness said they had
been to the house together, going in the back
way and seeing the child asleep. He repeated
that it was agreed between them that the child
should be regarded as dead.
Mr.. McGinn produced the records Of the
health Office showing that male white child
was born to S. White and Mary b. White,
March 10, 1882
DR.. Merriam identified the certificate of
death Of the child Mary Fisher, at 43 Moss ave-
nue., June IS. 1882.
Mrs. Nora Johnson was recalled and testified
to the death of Willie Fisher.
THE ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Darlington waived his right to open the
argument and Mr.. Hart for the respondent pro-
decided with his argument claiming, although
mistakes had been made in the record, that the
testimony Of the neighbors proved conclusively
that the boy produced was not the one which
the petitioner sought to obtain.
Mr.. Darlington in closing traced the life OF
the child, and claimed that the records could
not be ignored, and they were the best evil
depce that could be obtained
the death of the boy. The absence OF GER
tifcate Of the death Of the boy was, to say the
least, suspicious. He claimed that the petit
TONER had made out her case and should be
awarded her offspring.
THE CHILD GIVEN TO THE PETITIONER
The court said the simple question was: Is
this child the offspring of the petitioner and he
would come in fifteen minutes and give his
decision. In the meantime he desired TO see
the child privately.
Precisely in fifteen minutes the Judge came
in and said that there should be no demonstra-
ton Of approval or disapproval. He then read
his decision, stating that il was q strange case
and reversing the allegation Of the respondent