The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-08-01
BLYTHE'S WEALTH.
His Daughter Florence Victorious
in the Contest.
Judge Coffcy Delivers Lengthy and Master
ful Decision Upon the Various Claims
Of The Contestants.

TO Florence Blythe, the daughter OF the
deeedent The Williams claimants have
been adiudged next of kin, ana Alice Edith
Dickson, who claimed widows rights,
and the Sayages are ''over the fence and
out"
Judge CofFey has presided over the CON
test since July 10. 1889, and 1t took nm
within few minutes OF seven hours yes
terday to deliver orally his masteTtul decl-
sion upon the case. With the exception OF
II. +. Highton, one of the counsel Tor Alice
Edith Dickson, all the attorneys en-
ployed by the several claimants were pres
ent.
Florence and her friends made their ap-
pearauce in The afternoon, and the heIress
IL the great wealth received cOngratula-
tious from a large circle Of admirers. Miss
Dickson spent the day out Of town.
Thomas II. Blythe, pioneer and bach
elor, died in this city on April 4, 1888
His estate is now worth about 81 100000.
The claimants were Alice Edith Dickson,
who had lived with him in more or less in
innate relationship for five years previous
10 his death, and who asserted right of his
widow; Florence Blythe, a young girl re-
siding in England, who claimed the de-
Cgdent was ler father, and others, known
as the Williams infants and the Sayages,
Who asserted themselves to be next Of kin.
TLoEENCE's PATERNITY.
When Judge CotTey was seated on the
bench at O'clock in tie morning he pro-
ceeded to read the case OF the plaintiff,
Florence Blythe. lie said that the fact
Hrst to lie ssceltained is the paternity, ana
it must be. established that Florence sprang
from the luiuS. Ci Thomas II. BY the, and
was not the offspring Of Joseph Ashcroft.
The evidence Of Mrs. Ashcroft, the child
mother, was reviewed at length. Cununu-
ing the question Of paternity, his words
were as follows:
Tile deceased. at various times and 10 many
different leIsUns made statements after his re-
IuW l.Um England ana up 10 a tlme shorty be-
lore bis Ceatb, conn natury OF tie clam iiUt lie
Lad had a female child bonn TO lin IN England IN
ClrCuL stances corresponding TO those narrated
hy MS. Ashcroft IN Tact, lie never expressed a
doubt tIaI lie was tie father Of tins child e&-
CrIt ON one occasion. 4 he conclusion Of Counsel
Z uWIr that Mrs, Ashcroft aud her mother were
sIeel Walkeis.is not supported by evidence.
That julia Ashcroft was ruIe girl at the time
sic met Blythe was believed by him.
lie declared that Ter Ciilu Florence belonged
10 hiM; lie dld not dOuOt. IL al ais mat lie
mother was YlftuOuS, ard he had promised TO
marry ner and Intended 10 iulhu ii; thai lie lad
50 Ulou.iSed before she consented; That always
something occurred 10 prevent lis returning 10
England TO fulfill his promise. II spoke TO l..
= ii. Naiuey for tie first time about the child IN
1870. He showed him little picture OF girl
gir he lad IN EDglaudi tins picture was On LIS
table most Of the time.
AGAIN, 10 ls7G, lie spoke to Narney OF his de-
size 10 70 10 England; lie spoke OF woman, The
IHulutI " tie child, whose name was Jula
Perry, lie said he believed he lie father Of
Tie child. He spoke 10 DtaSy and 10 NJ. 5. Jel-
les Of Florence being his Child. lie spOhe III
Ike words 10 l.. =. Pedse, 10 John Il. LuttreIl, TO
George NJ. Petine, Frederick IL Eeed, Charles
n. Palmer, George :. Irl,h, NJ. NJ. Esiee and
Thomas +. Palmer. Here We have repeated
oral declarations on b8lAe'S part showing lie
had liked belief thai the Child was his offspring,
luadc al uIHeieHt times ana various places up 10
almost tie hUul Of Ills death, and some OF tbcSe
CaEuut be aud have not been accused Uf interest
o. Ll4s Of any Kind.
PROOF MUST DE PLENARY.
There is 10 evidence tGal Florence IS the child
OF JOSEF l. Ashcroft worthy Of attention. al the
strong testimony being to the effect that size Is
The Gau& uter Of Blythe. But paternity Is not The
only giOuld Oh winch tie hellship OF Florence
TESTS. Under Section go OF the CiTll code I'VE
elements must he established: a. lHeIe must
he au IleEitlmale CLuL; t2) the plalltlh must be
lie child, 81 the father must be l. ii. Blythe;
O. ue1uuSt publicly acknowledge her, and (5]
lie must treat her as legitimate child. she was
IuUrtrd AMI leglllmlZed aud IS aud mas Deen
ior ali purposes legitimate from the TINE Vi her
lie provisions Of Tie statute are to be literally
cousu Ted but The proof OF paternity must be
sIIIct and pleUary. Relatively II is Ol little con-
sequence what lie Tuie IS III given case, buI u
Is vi . eat Importance TO the community and 10
society and 10 TIE state TO lave the rule SO
Eravuiy affecting lis stability and integrity aud
property rights correctly lad down. III me
opinion OF lie Court three or The elements OF the
statute, section 23o, {. C., have been estab-
IsLed: ID There was an llleglllmate child; -
tie p.aiHiiH was that child; 81 Thomas IL.
Blythe, lie decedent here, was lie father oil that
CLIld.
Foleuce was publicly acknowledged by
Blythe Tie oral declarations made by deee-
dent TO various witness, are numerous aud eon-
IIuuc through a course Of years down TO almost
Tie hour OF his death. To friends ana acqualnt-
anCes lie repeatedly and unTesetYediy made
such aChuUTl- dgtmtnt times without number.
II was constant theme with Aim-eVer UPON
his lips lie effect OF these declarations Is here
alter weighed. As a matter Of law the fact OF
their making IS Established.
1 have considered the declarations as to
patiently BY themselves alone, as uear rs might
be- and separate and segregated from Tie declar'
atIOHs OF ackuoWlr dgwent, and shall pursue tile
sam. course to the latter. Nothing could be
moe public than tie letter BY lie addressed 10
Florence, and which went Though tie lO>t0tlce
with tie envelope pOstmarked san francisco,
August ill., and bearing the Inscription, Flor
euce Blythe, care Mr.. ". Ii. Beach, IL Bridge
street, Deansgate, Manchester, England
WHY FLORENCE WAS ESTRANGED.
The next question is, DID decd Mt receive
plaluii1 uTO his family within the meaning Of
the law? The court does not express any
opinion as to the character OF The eialonS be
tween Alice L. Blythe and the deceased al tie
lime Of his dcalh nor during tie Years Imme-
dIltely preceding but II has been shown that his
domestic arrangements were not such as 10 JUS
tfy Kim ID bringing tile Child out 10 San Fran
Cisco, and there Is Sutlceut proof OF reason Tor
not having done Tie testimony OF Mrs.
Blythe is quoted to show that the deceased al
ways said aud believed that Florence was his
child, ana that he Intended some time 10 SEND
Tor her.
Mrs Blythe made no objection 10 the deceased
adopting Florence and, in fact cUncurfed To
That COURSE, and whatever Tie relations may have
been that the defendant Alice Edith Blythe bore
10 the decedeul, whether she was hOusekeeper,
mistress, or vile, or female head OF such family
as he mad there was CONSENT full, uneQuivOcdl.
cumDrte, 10 tue adoption aud acknowledgment
OF lie child; but it was uol necessary III view OF
Al Nf fNfEF ma. dor in
TdngemenIs presented q difficulty about bringing
tie girl tG Sau Francisco that he should nave
actually taken her iutO his household. he did
all That was presently practicable before he died,
and there is sufficient proof for his having done
DO more. His acts abundantly attest compliance
with the Code Section 23O.
The final requirement OF Section 23O, q. c., Ia:
Did Blythe treat plaintiff as a legitimate child?
The opinion reviews tie arguments Of counsel on
this point and some OF The testimony given TO
establish that Blythe did so. He says the de-
ceased did not provide for Florence as well as
his Income gave reason to believe lie would, but
That be did send her mother hlnoney Is lucOutfo-
YeItlOle.
LEGALITY OF THE ADOPTION
It is uncomfortable, incredible, unlhlnkable,
that deceased could have adopted child whom
lie had never seru aud WHO had never been IN
California before his death. Ii could not have
been done. The law Of dOmlclle OF The mother
Of the girl governs, ana there is in that country
(EuE!and) no law of adoption, ana, consequently,
II could not have ben iuYO, ed in favor of the
plaiuilh claimant Thus contends counsel ad-
that she being Of alien extraction never within
The jurisdiction Of this State until after her
iatBet's death, could not have acknowledged and
adopted in accordance with the statute Of Cali
fornla is not a valid deduction. The law must be
taken as written, ana there is no such ntimatiOu
IN the language OF the statute aud such inter
probation within its spirit 1t Is concerned only
with the acts OF tie father performed here. the
uOmlcile OF the father, no matter where the OBJ
lect Of The act Is situated, at home or abroad.
tie question finally resolves into the plain and
simple propositions: What is the law Of Caliior-
uia and how does II operate?
Ali That the law OF California requires is such
recognition and acknowledgment as have been
established 10 evidence. There we're goOd aud
Sufficient reasons why the child was not brought
leIe up TO- the limo Of the hers death. The
great amount of legal learning brought to bear
upon this issue by the counsel adverse 10 plaintiff.
Claimant Is as Irrelevant as II Is remote and
foreign. II has no application to the ciicum-
stnces OF lhis case, in the opinion OF the Court.
Whatever might be the law of England or OF
duoin country OF State In respect 10 the status
Vi plMhtH mere, II cannot control the caDOns Of
1csceht III california. The statutes Of succession
heie aye solely dominant The Civil Code OF CALI
loThd pesto"s upon plaintiff here tl.e capacity
OF heif' IL the acts OF decedent have been proved
II lOllows That she Is his heir Our statute settles
the question here and II we have Correctly APP
pretended It's meaning there is 40 room for furtber
controversy.