The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1890-08-01

the paref may be true but II is too great strain
upon the credully of Court, already sIlIeie4 a
taxed TO acCeutit, especially IN view OF the les-
timony OF eX-Judge E. ID. Sawyer: rms uocG-
meut of iucaleulable importance II eslaullsIeu,
was not put, as II should have been, ID a pdce
nj sa fe deuosft but placed by Its huceI where IL
might easily he lost or destrOyed-ln MS ooN III
Room %, of the old building 72l42 M"'ket
Varney may be yeraciouS but in This Instance
lie lacks Confederation and suffers by witness
WHO needs no sponsors. AS 10 the evidence oil
Gutierrez little need be SAID. Ii is barely posi-
BILE tAat his Ia lie may be true but the Court does
moi feel iustif ed IN believing witness who had
for so long a time withheld his knowledge Ola
fact of vial consequence TO tie cause OF trulh.'
He leaves the service OF the administrator: \
wtIh this precious secret within his breast undl-
Vulged, and never biults bis knowledge uhtn
long after the ITial IN court begun IL IS paleG
possible that Gutierrez told the truth, Dut taxing
his test imony all through IL is extremely I'M
probable and tie Court declines to subStauuate
a bare possibility OF Truth ior an extreme prooa- |
billiy Of falls hood in a witness so lacking III lue
general elements OF credtbliity.
THE WILLIAMS NEXT OF KIN. e:
judge Coffey then took up the case of the
Williams claimants. He held them to be
next Of kin to Thomas II. Blythe and eX-
pTesSly declared that they were the only
coIIateTals who had any standing IN court. :;
Their testimony, he said, establishes sat:
isfuctorily that the true name Of the de- :.
ceased was Thomas Williams, and that he :.
was born IN Mold, Wales, July 80, 1872, and:
THAI the ersOnS claiming TO be his cOllat-
eral kindred here occupy the relation al
legged by them The written evidence aq-:
mItted amounts to demonstration, and the;
oral declarations testified TO-, and all the,cor- :
robOratiye circumstances make II clear that
these claimants are the next Of kin and tha:
only persons of that description III, collat-.
eral degree before the court :: :.
The Judges decision that thew llliams:
claimants are next OF kin will have the Ell
feet Of bringing them in for the whole. IN.
heritance il the case is appealed to the SUI SUI
preme Court and there decided that Blytne'
did not legally acknowledge Florence as his
child.
Judge CUtfey gave his conclusion IN the
case Of the alleged widow, Alice Edith as"
follows: = ::
Tie contradictions in the case Of this claim: =
aut-Gie lrtecuncilable and cannot be fecOnciled
on tie basis that Gecedeut aid defendant we're
husband aud wife. She has not alhrmaiiyey ts-
tab.ished Increase much less sustained IL by any.
prepVuueTauce Of evidence against the mass Of
testimony Ia opposition TO her claim. Her own
evidence does not Eatm0DlZe with Eer pleading:
Her Witnesses fan 10 sub>tantlate her slate
ments in material particulars, and some OF IN M
are so Uaii;lBly untruIhful that the marvel Is
that any One has had lie temerliy to trade upon
OF the many insignificant incidents that have
been testified 10 IN his case some may have
escaped tie attention OF tie Court and: thus
passed without comment, such as mutllailOn.0f
NudeFs book accounts Of the transactions with .
The Defendant, where tie rage containing her;.
that she was not known by any olheruaue until ..
after tie death OF the decrdeut. But enough mas
been established 10 cause her claim TO-. be-re.
Jected as not supported by prepouderahce OF
evidence. -: ="
This may te a case OF hardship, but with. that.
consideration this court cannot be cOncerued--lL
is case without legal merit. The Court can ::
only regard tie facts IN evidence and administer
The law il Is found, aud, so hOldlug lie deter
mnaton must be and II Is against The Claim
presented and prosecuted by The defendant.
claimant. she was not the wife and she is:nOt ;;
the widow Of lie deceased Thomas ii. Blythe.
TIE GYPSY CLAIMANTS. :. :: !.
The Court disposed Of the gypSy.claIm-.,
ants briefly and as follows: -:
This case had credible appearance when.
first produced. The claimants are per sons who
lave IMPRESSED the Court tavOrdhly a. TO thtlrs
they ST rted III with The honest nope OF eStdDSll.'
lug their t!Ic 10 The estate, bur 10 tnen, asIo
others, hope told fallsTng tale" a. the be-
ginning and II 1Aey retained IL 10 me eiid OF Inc
Trial disai pUlHtmsui muSi have followed. -.
II was ausibie case. well presented, With =.
every point Of vantage quickly seized and" ylsi- :
lantly guarded. but II anything was necessary TO :
condemn IL IL was the testimony OF The man " no .
was described by counsel As tile las and most,
important" James Dufllcy- His evidence sealed
It's doom. Il Is . Scotch case win Scotch YER
dict, mot proven"
THE COLLATERAL CLAIMANTS.
The collateral claimants were thus treated
by the Court in the termination OF the
lengthy decision in the contest:
IL Is Impossible to BeHeve that the litigauts'
kindred are not beiGIe lie Court. The presump-
ton Of their presence IS iIeslsiby who they
are. And which OF them is mex; Of kan Is The
question. Tie uTsl collateral case, so deuOmin-
ated Tor convenience is that OF The Blythe Com
pauy IN behalf OF The Liverpool claimants. This
case was presented with ability and ingenuity,
but there IS IN II fatal failure TO connect The
Thomas Ii. Blythe OF this city with tile Thomas
Blythe" born Of Alexander Blythe and Mary
Warren Blythe and legitimatized IN the church
OF 81. Nichols, Liverpool May 10, 1919;
the testimony OF the Liverpool witnesses shows
r1,tT fIRar pf
Blythe, ba eT, left there IN 1888 and was never
heard Of af,erward. one Of them testified in his
deposition that in 1883 Tom promised that lie
would be in California before defendant.
some Of Them testify that the Blythe they knew
had daik complexion; yet II IS well established
that the Thomas II. Blythe OF Sap Francisco had
a very fair complexion. Some pretend that, al
though Oue-LaH century has elapsed, they
Identity This Blythe from the pion er photo
graph There is a failure TO account for his
Whereabouts from 1S3S 10 1S49, and the latter
items Of evidence are euiIfely Inadequate TO
identify the LiveruoO Blythe with the decedent.
As Counsel 5 w. Holiday said, there was but
one man who could supply the place OF Thomas
II. Blythe; no TWO bodies IN hysical nature can
occupy the same place; no TWO beings I'D physical
nature are precisely allbe; no TWO grains OF sand
are tile same, but character conduct, mental at
tributes, distinguish persons who have physical
likeuesses. The case OF the Blythe Company
does not present The characteristics of The real
Thomas II. Blythe. Ii Is out OF line with his
Whole character and career, and there is fatal
hiatus from 1888 10 1919, Which has not been
supplied by The evidence. IAis case IS not es-
l2DuSheu.
VALUE OF THE ESTATE.
The Blythe estate was appraised shortly
after Blythe's death, in the Summer of 1888,
at 100000. 1t is now worth close to
$4,000 COO having been reappraised last
year, after Public Administrator Pennie
succeeded Philip A. Roach in the admins
tration, on R0acn's death. While parts of
this estate lie in Mexico, Arizona and Ne
vada, and in Trinity and san Diego cOun-
ties in California, the bulk Of 1t is COM
prised in the centrally located gore between
Market and Geary streets and Grant ave-
nue. in this city.
Florence Blythe is now 16 years old. Her
grandfather, James Crisp Perry, and her
mother, Juila Ashcroft, are with her, living
IN this city, having come out from England
in 1888. Her grandfather is her legally APP
pointed guardian under the order of Judge
Coffey.
1t is generally believed that the case will
be appealed t. the Supreme Court by the
Williams claimants.
The Williams claimants have refused 10
accept less than S3000OO0 when approached
upon the subject f Il settlement, and bliss
| Dickson, when offered 100000 in cash,
wanted all the estate or nothing. 1t is pos
sble that the former viii take cipher or
two off the amount they have demanded,
and the latter may reconsider the offer Of so
large a sum. The lees OF the attorneys for
the plaintiff will be paid out OF the estate,
and VIII probably amount to 100000.
AT THE ELEVENTH HOUR.
Another Lot of English Claimants Heard
Prom.
The following letter has been filed in the
Probate Departments:
Ire Blythe Estatel
CRTNPLEsHAM, BOWMAN, NORFOLK
ENGLAND. July Is, 1890. I
M LORD Judge; III you kindly excuse my