The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1890-08-01
BLYTHE'S NEXTOF KIN
Illegitimate Daughter Florence
Awarded His Millions.
END OF 4 CELEBRATED CASE.
How the Fortune was Accumulated
The Old Mans Misfresscs and Hosts
of Eager Relatives.

SAN Francisco, July 31.-The celebrated
Blythe will contest. which was begun July
Is, 1889, and progressed steadily for over
year, ended today in Judge Godfrey rend-
ering q voluminous decision in favor OF
Florence, illegitimate daughter OF Thomas
III. Blythe, the demented millionaire,
awarding her the bulk of the estate. con-
sisting OF houses and lands in this city and
other property, of the value OF about
$4,000, 600.
he contestants included the plaintiff,
Florence Blythe, Alice Edith Dickinson.
the alleged widow of Blythe, the Williams
heirs, OF Liverpool, the Blythe company,
Gypsy Blythe, the S4vages. OF London, the
Scottish Savages, James Witt Pean, and
William and David Savage. IRE courts
opinion holds that according to the laws OF
this state Florence had established her
claim to the Blythe paternity. the latter
orally and in writing having acknowledged
her as his child.
The Judge said there were seven or eight
decisions involved in the case, but he had
written but two opinions. In regard to the
collateral heirs, he had not written an
opinion, but would state the decision after
reviewing the causes of the action, which
The court proceeded to read his opinion.
holding the fact first to be ascertained was
the paternity of the child. Three elements
have been established in the opinion OF the
court First, there was the illegitmate
child; second, the plaintiff was that child;
third, Thomas H. Blythe. decedent here.
was the father of that child. As to the al
legged paper wherein B ythe expressly and
n ho
child, the court ruled adversely. holding
that the evidence in favor OF it was incred-
ible; but all that the law of California re-
quired in the case of an iilegiumate child Is
such r, cognition and acknowledgment as
the evidence produced by the plaintiff
would tend 10 show and did show.
In the case of the alleged widow the
court says that the contradictions in the
case of this claimant are irreconcilable, and
cannot be reconciied on the basis that de-
cedent and defendant we're man and wife,
Judge Coffee held that the other contest
ants, with the exception OF the Williams
claimants, had made no case. The latter
were declared next of kin.
Florence Blythe, the heiress, is the daugh.
ter of Thomas Henry Blythe and Julia
Perry, whom Blythe met in London in
1878, and who afterwards married Joseph
Ashcroft.
Little is known of Blythe's antecedents.
He left Liverpool on the steamer Antelope
in 1849, and arrived in this city in the same
year. He invested what money he had in
the purchase of block of land now in the
heart of the city, aud the rents and in-
crease of value thereof made him wealthy.
He also owned q large amount of land in
San Diego and in Arizona and Mexico. He
died April 4, 1888, at his apartments in this
city, where he was living with Alice Dick
inson, who claimed to have been married
to him by contract. Blythe's foreign birth
and certain incidents in his career led to
the putting forth of claims from many
parts of the United Kingdom, but Judge
Coffee today ruled that the foreign contest
ants had made no case. with the exception
of the Williams heirs, who were declared
by him to be the next of kin.