The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-12-02
DEFEATED CLAIMANTS.
How They View the Decision of the
Supreme Court.

Samuel and +. Burke Holiday were en-
ployed to represent the celebrated gypsy
heirs to Biythe's millions. They appeared
as counsel for all the gypsy Blythes, So
called. Their claim was that the deceased
millionaire was descended from a Blythe
who was born IN Scotland in 1920. The at
torneys made out very strong case, and
have been the hardest fighters against the
successful Florence ever since Judge Cot
fey's origin al decision. This legal firm does
not accept the decision of the Supreme
Court as being final, and are quite emphatic
on insisting on this fact. Their views are
generally those OF the other heirs as repre-
scented by counsel.
Burke Holiday was in the Supreme
Court yesterday afternoon looking over the
papers in the case preparatory to taxing
some steps In the matter. When questioned
be said:
whole lot of fight in us yet, and Florence is
not near to Blythe's millions yet. They
talk as II Blythe's property was 10 be dis
tributed Immediately, the ready cash dis
tributed to Florence and her lawyers and
tall buildings erected on Market street and
Grant avenue. Why, those sky-hgh build
lngs VIII not be seen for years yet. The
fight is just on.
Our contention is that the decision is
not hnal, because first we. as representa-
ives OF gypsy heirs, are not parties TO the
appeal which was brought by the Williams
heirs, and what the Supreme Court does on
THIS subject does not prejudice our case.
secondly, we, as represents tive5 of the
gypsy heirs, are moving for a new trial in
the court below. We shall bring on that
motion and make vigorous fight and ex-
pect to make a good showing. Our motion
for new trial is based on newly discoy-
cred evidence and on the ground that the
evidence was insufficient TO justify the de-
cisinn.
If tile new trial should be granted.there
would be no necessity for an appeal. III not
we shall take an appeal and bring up to the
Supreme Court all the evidence in the case,
which was not done In the Williams ap-
peal inst decided, the decision being entirely
on matter Of law because it was on a
Judgment On an appeal from an order
denying a new trial the appellate court
considers the evidence to see whether il will
justify the decision. while on an appeal from
judgment direct il is simply n matter as TO
whether The findings support the Judgment
In the case just decided by the Supreme
Justices they did not bring up or call IN
question the parentage If the child. this be-
ing virtually admitted for the puTp SEES OF
appeal by the Williams but we are not
bound or preiudieed by their admission.
and on cur appeal in our presentation of the
case we Will deny such parentage Upon
our appeal, while we would not be bound
by the law OF this last case, it would be sim
ply authorative and liable to be Overrulei
as erroneous, just as IN any other case.
Il n the Sharon case they took an appeal
from the judgment and Sarah Althea was
sustained just as the present Blythe case.
subsequently,, when there was a second ap-
peal, which was from the order DENYING
new trial, this brought up all the evidence
IN the case. and Sarah Althea lest all her
millions.
''Our first proceedings will be 10 Oh
tain rehearing. You know this can be
done In few days, just 10y a little order.
III We get that we will not appeal Just yet
as representa lives Of the gvnsY heirs