The morning call. [volume] (San Francisco [Calif.]) 1878-1895, 1892-05-03
CLAUDE LEES BOY.
Judge COffey's Decision in the
Mcdonald Estate.
Paternity and Adoption of tie Child Of an
Illicit Love Held to Have Been Ebur-
dainty Established.

"As a proposition OF law. the paternity
being established. the act of 10 one else
can stapd between this petitioner and his
patrimOuy."
So said Judge Coffey from the bench yes
terday, deciding affirmatively the appliea-
ton for distribution by Henry Mcdonald,
claiming to be the child Of the deceased
Captain Charles Z. S. Mcdonald, whose es-
tate is in process OF administration, and who
died on March q, $780,
Henry was born on February ., 1874, his
mother being Claude Lee. now Mrs. Ran
some Mcdonald Was q frugal old Scotch
man who had two passions-oIe to amass
money and the other the eXemplifcati0n Of
z0uaYe-dTil regulations. He left an estate
valued at some $50, COO. The contest was
on one side between Henry, the Legitimate
offspring by one Mrs. RaDsOme, better
known by her stage name OF Claude Lee,
and the brother and sisters Of the deceased
on the other.
THE JUDGES DECISION.
As the Judge said, in his decision, the
boys counsel undertook to establish that
the claim Of the child was not founded upon
any base consideration and was not the off,
spring OF cupidity or conspiracy, nor OF
woman attempting I'd practice predatorily
a
adventures, but one who was the victim Of
circumstances that palliated her act ana
eXtenuated her Otfense, Her poverty and
distress we're taken advantage OF by the
superior strength and lust OF The deceased;
and while il was true she was then nomi-
nally the wife of oAe Henri Stuart, as he
was known upon the variety theatrical
boards, Hiram de Witt Goodwin being ms
true name, il was impossible that ne could
have been the father Of the child, because
int M n
Finally. il was asserted that the boy claims
were 10 be established by the frequent and
constant public acknowledgment Of. the pa
ternijy Of tic claimant by the deceased"
The trial Of the case began on October Z
1891, and it was finally submitted on tebTu-
airy T. 1892 occupying SO days or l52 hours
in all during which q witnesses were eX-
amined for the claimant and "A for the re-
| spUndents.
HAD No DOUBT.
Judge Coffey never had any doubt as 10
the paternity of the boy, ana announced his
belief frcm the bench on January II, 1892.
but certain questions of law needed TO be
resolved before pr0nsuneing judgment II
do not think" said he yesterday, that the
testimony brought in after the reopening of
the case materially affects the situation,
either Of fact or OF law, rs 1t stood at the
first submission.
said the Judge: Counsel fcr resDOn-
dents in adverting TO the public interest in
this case, said that it was of Importance far
beyond its effect upon the interest OF claim
! ant, for il touches the basis OF society and
/ strikes at the safety and stability ef the
social structure. If this be 50 the remedy
! is in repeating the act Of the Legislature
which authorizes such applications, and not
| in attempting its abr0gatlOn by Judicial
| legislation. Ii is not to be presumed that
| the law was enacted for the purpose Of I'M
! periliug virtue or promoting vice or licens-
| ing lust; but it is to be presumed cOnclu-
| siveiy that the motives Of the legislator
| were worthy and calculated 10 protect the
! innocent IA the Obtainment and enjoyment
| of a natural right. Ii the facts be estab-
! lished as alleged the law is explicit and the
courts were Instituted and exist solely for
| its enforcement. The Code Of California is
| the sanction for this proceeding, and that
| code is the expression Of the moral sense of
! the community and commonwealth"
! CANNOT BE CIRCUMYENTED.
The court argues at some length the inn
| possibility Of tile applicant being the child
! of Goodwin. alias Stuart, and argues that
| the physical fact cannot be ciTcumYented
| that Mcdonald was the father, concluding,
| as he had before remarked orally, that IF
/ there be one fact established beyond pc rad
venture of doubt in my mind il is that the
| claimant is the fruit of relations between
! decedent and the mother Of the petitioner"
| AS to the effect of the boys claim of the
| records Of the action for divorce entitled
! Goodwin VS.. GOODWIN, the court QlQ not
! think that the infant is estopped from deny
| ing the effect Of the findings aud judgment
| in that case and demanding his birthright.
But the paternity having been established.
| the next question was whether there had
| been public acknowledgment and main
tenance as a legitimate child.
81 am 0f opinion" said the Judge that
the evidence i'll support Of this issue Is
abundant as to the facts and that the statu-
tory conditions are supplied in every partc-
ular. To rehearse the evidence would be
simply to reproduce my notes, which con-
tain, as i think. faithful transcript of the
substance of the testimony and establish the
claim If acknowledgment. Iegitimation and
adoption under section go Of the Civil
Code"
In conclusion this very interesting decl-
sion says:
The failure to call Duncan Mcdonald the
b. other OF decedent. on the part OF the respond
ent, 10 contradict The evidence In favor OF the
claimant. Is not sdtIsIacl orily accounted for by
counsel for respondent, that the sole reason for
not putting bin on the stand was that they did
not care To yOuch for his creaibility; 1t seems
rather prOba bic that he could not, even u he
would, testify against The claimant, for he knew
that The claim OF the petitioner was based upon
truth. both as TO paternity and acknowledgement
and that he was entitled 10 succeed as heir 10
the estate Of decedent.
TaU