St. Paul daily globe. [volume] (Saint Paul, Minn.) 1884-1896, 1890-09-22


lily, and otherwise treating it as if it
were a legitimate child, thereby adopts
it as such, and such child is thereupon
for all purposes legitimate from the
time of its birth. The foregoing pro-
visions Of this chapter do not apply to
such an adoption.
Judge COffey discussed closely the
evidence submitted to prove adoption
under this statute. Aside from the
question whether Miss Dickson was the
wife of Blythe it was in evidence that
she was in sympathy with Blythe's plan
to bring the child to his home. Judge
Coffey even quoted authority in verse
In passing upon the question of adop-
ton. Council for the defense, says the
court. quotes more or less appOsitely
from Mrs. Elizabeth Barrett BrOwning's
poem of Aurora Leigh" in which he
says all the phases of life are seen with
the eye OF poet, than which no eye
sees clearer:
You take this Marian's child which is her
shame,
In sight of man and woman for your child,
Of whom you will not even feel ashamed?
Here, take the child
10 snare my cup to slumber on my knee.
10 play his loudest gambol at my foot,
10 hold up my finger in the public ways
Till none shall need inquire Whose child is
this?'
The gesture saying so tenderly, My own.'''
These lines of poetry, says the coun-
sci. express the whole law of adoption.
Blythe never did this with the child
with her, never saw her. He might
have taken trip to England and been
back almost in thirty days, but with
all his "IdolatrOus affection" for this
girl he never did so.
But the court finds:
All that the law of California re-
quires is such recognition and acknowl-
edgment as have been here established
IN evidence. There was good and suf-
ficient reasons why the child was not
brought here up to the time of the
father's death. The great amount of
legal learning brought to bear upon this
issue by the counsel adverse to the
plalntltf-claimant is as irrelevant as it is
remote and foreign. 1t has no applica-
ton to the circumstances of this case.
Whatever might be the law of England
or OF another country or state in respect
to the status of plaintiff there. it cannot
control the canOns of descent in Cali
fornia: the statutes of succession here
are solely dominant: the civil code of
California bestows upon plaintiff here
the capacity of heir; if the acts of de-
cedent have been proved it follows that
she is his heir. 1t is the statute of Cali
fornla that is under discussion, and not
the law of any other country or state.
Our statute settles the question here.
and, if we have correctly apprehended
its meaning, there is no room for further
controversy.
Was She a Wife,
Having pronounced the child to be
the daughter and heiress of the dead
millionaire, Judge COffey took up the
claims of Miss Dickson and analysed
her story. Her acquaintance with
Blythe. she said. began in 1875, when
there was harmless filtration when
they met upon the street. She lost sight
OF him till 1878, when she called upon
him as the owner of a cottage she
wished to hire. She recognized him
as a former acquaintance whose
name she had never known. He
recognized her and at once
seemed to be deeply interested in her,
and as they were frequently interrupted
in Mr.. BlYthe'S Office, he requested her
to meet him at lunch at his private resi-
dence. which was then at O'Farrell
street, San Francisco, at IL o'clock of
that day. They met accordingly and
Iunched together and he was minute in
his inquiries about her former life and
OiOplQy SlCQb lHtClCSL LII IlGIs NO
conclusion was reached at that time
about the cottage. and within the next
few days, they lunched and dined to-
gether several times, but there
were no other relations between
them. On these locations he pro-
gressively manifested great affection
for her, and urged her repeat
eddy to be with him as much as possible
and to permit him to become her pro-
tector; but, while she liked his appear
ance and realized that, in view of his
wealth, of which she had become in
formed, an alliance with him might be
of great advantage to her, she Informed
him distinctly that she could only live
with him or be under his protection in
the capacity of his wife, and that there
could be no relations between them ON
any other conditions. About May II
she removed into the cottage.
where she continued to live for some
time, and where Blythe was nOminally
her landlord, and where she was handed
by him several receipts for rent which
she had not paid. At about the date of
this removal Blythe, who was or pro-
feSSed to be a SpiritualiSt, and had very
peculiar ideas about marriage and the
ceremonies connected Herewith, pro-
posed to her that they should live to-
gether as husband and wife. and that he
should become and remain her protector
and adviser, and that they should be
mutually faithful to each other so long
as both should live. He gave her
week to think over this proposal.
She had not then contracted
toward him the devoted affec-
ton which she afterward felt for him.
but she was young and dependent upon
her own eXertiOnS for her livelihood,
che was aWav from hnr norantc ood oil
relatives; she liked his personal ap-
pearance and manners, and she be-
lieved that his wealth and affection for
her would be guarantee to her for a
comfortable support during her life. At
the end of the week he called upon her
at the cottage and she consented to his
proposals as they were then modified
and elaborated. He asked her if she
would consent to live with him and be
to him faithful and loving wife,
and if she would accept him as asfalth-
full and loving husband and give him
the right and the power to look out for
her and protect her during the remain
der of their joint lives. She placed her
hands within his, at his request, and
said she would accept him as her hus-
band and give him the right and the
power to protect and care for her while
they should both live. and at his request
she promised that she would be faith
full and loving wife to him and that
she would renounce everything else
for him and live for him and care for
him through health and sickness and
until death.
The Courts Decision.
Summing up the whole story of the
alleged widows relations with the mill
ionaire the court said:
Her story of the betrothal and marri-
age is very interesting, but it is entirely
dependent upon her own testimony, 1t
is incumbent on the defendant to prove
the fact of marriage on the 10Th of Nav.
1878; they were either married on that
day or they were never married: and
this fact, the consent marriage, is
wholly dependent upon the evil
dence of the defendant. 1t is
remarkable that a person with the
principles she protested and the deter