The sun., 1891-01-31
ranch, and the other is Mr.. JAMES o. GREEN.
Both Of these gentlemen knew Mr.. HAMII-

ranch, and the other Ia Mr.. JAMES o. GREEN.
Both Of these gentlemen knew Mr.. HAMI1-
TON well; both saw the dead body, and they
alone are left as competent witnesses to tes-
tiiy In the case. Mr.. SARGENT is said to be
snowed in upon an inaccessible ranch. His
testimony can, therefore, not be had. He
has not been heard from.
A commission has been sent to Europe to
obtain Mr. GREENS testimony. We kno,o in
ddrance uhat that testimony riH be. for we
have tho statement VI his father, DR.. NOR
WIN GREEN, President OF tho Western Union
Telegraph Company, who. it appears, has
now been interviewed In this Interesting
case for the first time He says that his son
had given him detailed account OF the find
ing OF the drowned mans body, "bm he nercr
said that he had identified the body as that Of
ROBERT RAY HAMILTON. On the contrary,
he told mo that tho body taken from the
water was 80 changed by days OF exposure
to the elements that he could not identify
It," When asked what would be the value OF
such evidence. DR.. GREEN declared that 1t
BiH be practically of no cdt,Ie and 80 in
formed counsel in the case who called upon
mo yesterday. Whatever may havo been
published on the subject, 1t is fact that my
son did not identify the body found on tho
ranch In the autumn as that OF Mr. HAMIL-
TON. That Is all have to say. l don't In
tend to discuss tho case"
Tho chief argument against our theory
has been that, n Il were true, then
Mr.. JAMES o. GREEN must have falsifled the
facts. Tho statement OF Mr. GREENS father
proves that young Mr.. GREES never identi-
fed the body as that OF RoBEl.r RAY HAM
ILToN and cannot identify it now The only
other witness who remains is Mr.. SARGENT.
Mr.. GREEN had known RoBERT RAY HAMIL-
TON for years; Mr.. SARGENT had known him
but short timo. II Mr.. GREEN could not
identify tho dead body, Mr.. SARGENT GER
tainty cannot.
Whom ROBERT RAY HAMILTON dsap-
peared, he was suing for tho annulmcnt OF
his marriage. Upon him depended the bur-
den OF proof. 1t was q difficult task. His
alleged wife was suing to compel him to
support hcr from his estate, and protracted
and most expensive litigation stared him in
the face. His death reversed the situation.
Tho burden OF proof was taken from him
and was placed upon the shoulders OF tho
claimant. Her claim was promptly thrown
out in the Surrogate's Court and now tho
last step In tho litigation that will free Mr..
HAMILTON from his ENHANCEMENT appears
In tho shape OF suit on the part OF his
brothers wife, to have the ceremonial mar
riage between HAMILTON and EVA MANN
declared void, because it is cloud on the
title Of tho real estate disposed Of by his will
II this case Is also decided in favor OF Mr..
HAMILTON, no can return, assert his rights,
and reclaim the estate that has been willed
to his brother; for that will would DO null
and void. Even tho $1,000 annuity left to
Baby BEATRICE would cease to be legally
hers. What q comfortable situation this
would be for ono who, n year ago, was ap-
parently involved in disgraceful, humiliat-
ing, and inextricable entanglements! What
truo friend Of ROBERT RAY HAMILTON does
not hope that he is still livingp