Los Angeles herald., 1890-08-01
FLORENCE'S FORTUNE
Blythe's Illegitimate Child
Inherits His Wealth.
The Numerous Other Claimants
Get Nothing.
The Alleged Widow in the Soup
With the Rest.
The Williams Heirs Declared to be Next
of Kin-The Famous Will
Contest Ended.
Associated Press Dispatches. |


SAN FRANCISCO, July 31.-The cele-
brated Blythe will contest, which began
July Is, 1889, and progressed steadily
for over year, ended today in Judge
Coffey rendering voluminous decision
in favor of Florence, the illegitimate
child OF Thomas H. Blythe, the de-
ceased millionaire, awarding her the
bulk of the estate, consisting of houses
and lands in this city and other prop
erty, of the total value of about four
million dollars. The contestants in
cluded the plaintiff, Florence Blythe,
Alice Edith Dickinson, the alleged widow
of Blythe, the Williams heirs, of Liver
pool, the Scotch-Irish Savages, James
Witt Pearce and William and David
Savage. The courts opinion held that,
according to the laws of this state, Flor
ence had established her claim to
Blythes 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 cause of
action, which was to determine the
right of heirship, the court proceeded to
read the opinion, holding that the fact
first to be ascertained was the paternity
Of the child. Three elements had been
established in the opinion of the court:
l.. There was an illegitimate child. 2.
Plaintiff was that child. g. Thomas H.
Blythe, the decedent here, was the
father OF that child. AS to the alleged
paper wherein Blythe expressly
and formally acknowledges Flor
ence to be his child, the
court ruled adversely; holding that
the evidence in favor of it was incredi-
BILE, but that all that the law of Califor-
mia required in the case of an illegiti-
mate child is such recognition and
acknowledgment as the evidence pro-
duced by plaintiff would tend to show,
and did show.
In the case of the alleged widow, the
court says the contradictions in the case
of this claimant are irreconcilable, and
cannot be reconciled on the basis that
the decedent and defendant were man
and wife.
Florence Blythe, the heiress, is the
daughter of Thomas Henry Blythe and
Julia Perry, whom Blythe met in
London in 1878, and who after
wards married Joseph Ashcroft.
Little is known of Blythe's antecedents.
He left Liverpool on the steamer Ante
lope i'll 1S49, 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 business
portion of the city, and the rents and
increase of the value thereof made him
wealthy. He also owned large amount
of land in San Diego, CAL, and in Ari-
zona and Mexico. He died April 4,
1888, at his apartments in this city,
where he was living with Alice Dickinson,
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
sections OF the United Kingdom, but
Judge Coffey today ruled that the for
eign contestants had made no case, with
the exception Of the Williams heirs,
who were declared by him to be the next
of kin.