The record-union., 1892-12-01
speclal 10 the REcoRp-Uxrox.
by Justice Garoutte.

Blythe was the sole heir of Thomas II.
Blythe's millions. The opinion consists
of thirty-four pages of typewriter mat
ter. 1t was written by Justice Garoutte
and was concurred in by Paterson and
Sharpstein. Justice Mcfarland wrote an
opinion by which he also affirmed the
judgment of the lower court, and Justice
Sharpstein concurred in this opinion.
Justices Beatty and Harrison did not
participate in the decision, being disqual
ified, both having been interested to some
extent in the case.
After giving brief review Of the facts
and the law OF the case as adduced upon
the trial, Justice Garoutte said:
This case upon its facts presumably
stands alone in legal Jurisprudence. for
counsel in the exercise of great learning
and uneXampled industry have failed TO
parallel il. We have here father at all
times domiciled in the State of California,
a mother at all times domiciled in Eng
land, and an illegitimate child born in
England and continuously residing there
until the death of her father in California.
AS to the effect of our statutes upon such
a state of facts, the consideration of the
matter of domicile of these parties and
the principles OF law applicable thereto
is q most important element to its proper
determination"
Continuing, he declared that the con-
tention of the appellants (the Williams
heirs that the status of a person residing
in foreign country and a subject thereof
cannot be changed by Acts performed in
California under the provision of the
law of the State Legislature, cannot be
supported, as rule, without many eX-
ceptiOnS and to the extent of those eX-
ceptions State law must be held by it's
own courts at least to have extra terrific
rial operation. And this principle of the
foreign operation Of State law even goes
to the extent that in many instances
such laws are recognized and given effect
by the courts of that particular foreign
jurisdiction. After quoting q number of
decisions in favor of this doctrine he said
that it was carried to a still greater extent
in criminal cases, where crime has been
committed in foreign jurisdiction. He
quoted the section OF the code by which
illegitmate children are legitimized by
the subsequent marriage of the parents,
and he said that its operation was not
confined within State lines. Oceans fur
nish no obstruction to the effects of its
benehcent provisions; it is mamma to the
bastards of the world. If Blythe had sub
sequent to the birth of the plaintiff re-
turned to England and married Julia
Perry under that provision Florence
would have been legitimiZed.
He asserted, furthermore, that she was
so domiciled that by the laws of this
State she could have been changed from
bastardy to legitimacy. Our statutes.
conjoined with principles of International
law, would have changed her bastardy to
legitimacy in the world at large, and re-
gardless of international law and regard
less of all laws of foreign countries, our
statutes alone would nave made her
legitimate in the world at large, when
md hnN hn IA
have presented itself in the courts of the
State of California.
This case illustrates the effect of a
statute OF this State attaching to a state of
facts where the mother and child were
never in California, and the marriage
taking place in England, and California
law having the effect upon that child to
give it different domicile and COM
pleteiy change its status. Such would
not only be the effect of the law upon the
child as viewed by a California court, but
such would be its effect viewed by the
courts of England.
He moreover asserted that Florence
founded her claims upon the statutes OF
this State and invoked the jurisdiction of
the State court. 1t was a question of
California law to be construed in Califor-
mia courts, and there was nothing in the
Constitution, statutory law or interna-
tional law which prevented Blythe from
1ldhluS luO JldlDllu his udu2lter IN
every sense that the word implied. He
therefore held that Blythe, being domi-
clled in this State at the time of the
performance OF the acts which it was
claimed legitimized the plaintiff, it fol-
lowed that she was possessed of capac-
lty for legitimation. The court further
found that Blythe complied with the
statute in publicly acknowledging Flor
ence as his daughter, and that he could
not have received her into his family, be-
cause he had no family unless it could be
contended that his mistress or collateral
kindred constituted a family. 1t would
be traveSty upon the whole world to so
hold. Continuing, he said:
In the light OF the evidence furnished
by the record there can be no doubt. but
if Blythe had died testate Florence would
have been the first object of his care.
Under an Indiana statute, marriage
and a subsequent acknowledgement of the
child by the father constituted e legiti-
nation of the child, and where the father
married the woman and acknowledged
the child for the sole purpose of escaping
q prosecution Tor bastardy, and with the
intention at the time of the marriage to
Immediately abandon the mother and
the child, ii was held that such intentions
were entirely immaterial and that his
acts created leg timation.
ut is often insisted that the letters
when placed in the crucible by which
they are TO be tested are found wanting
because it is said that the writing must
be complete in itself; that is, it must
show upon its face that the child is an
illegitimate child and that it was signed
in the presence of competent witness.
There is nothing in the law to warrant
such q claim. The statute does not re-
quire it.
at would not add one jot to the weight
and credit to be given To the writing by
II
at a final determination OF the merits OF
the cause than if Blythe had said in his
writing, I made this writing, and the
facts therein stated are true A state
ment in writing that it was signed in the
presence of a competent witness could not
be evidence of that fact. No more would
q reference in the writing TO the child as
an ilIegitimate child establish such lille
gitimacy.
Blythe, in writing, acknowledges him
self to be the father Of Florence Blythe.
She is an iIlegitimate child; therefore,
blythe acknowledged himself TO be the
father of an illegitimate child. This logic
is unassailable, and there is no sound
reason that can be adduced why the ac-
knowledgment should contain decIara-
tion of bastardy.
'.Chief Justice Beatty's language in the
Jessup case is apropos. 1t reads: The
only argument that can be made against
his claim to inherit his fathers estate
rests upon a strict construction OF the
statutes To secure to innocent unfortu-
mates in his situation just measure OF
the rights TO which they are by nature as
fully entitled as are legitimate offspring.
''In cases like this the only strictness
required is IN the proof OF paternity.
Courts should lean strongly in favor OF q
finding that the father of an illegitimate
child has done what every honest and
human man should not only be willing