The herald., 1894-03-17
LITTLE EM'LVS TROUBLES
III ILL LIVT u ITIVVVLIVI
She Scores Two Victories in
Court Against Her Mother.
A Girl Who Was Denied Even Dead
Father.
The UnsuccessfuI Effort of Mrs. Marie
PernOt to Get Her Daughters
Guardian Removed by
Judge CLARK.

The efforts OF l6-year.old Emile Barre
to be recognized as the daughter of Jean
Barre, deceased, disclose state OF affairs
similar to the attempts Of Marryat's
Jsphet to discover his honorable pro-
gsnitor.
Miss Barre is a native of Paris, and
was brought to this country by Jean and
Marie Barre three years and half ago,
in company with two boys whom she
always took for her brothers, while the
two elder people she called father and
mother, and never entertained doubt
that enc was not az much the daughter
OF the one ss she Was Of the other.
Emile sincerely mourne6 Jean Barre
when he died ON the 22d Of June, 1891,
and remained a loving daughter to her
widowed mother; but when Marie took
unto herself another husband in the
person of Y. A. Pernot on July 2, 1898,
the pleasant relation which had existed
between mother and daughter became
somewhat clouded. Emile, according
to Mrs. Psrnot, turned sullen and diso-
bedient; the 15-yeAr-old-childw was finally
sent out In the world to seek work just
! q short month after Mrs. Barre had be-
come Mrs. Pernot.
The child found employment with
Florence W. Thurston, q milliner, who
proposed to teach her her trade and
placed her in the store to wait upon
French speaking lady customers.
Barre had died possessed OF some
worldly goods. a share OF which Emile,
as his daughter, was supposed to be en-
titled to. In order to obtain this the
young girl selected Florence w. Thurs
ton as her guardian, and the selection
was confirmed by the superior court.
This led to lawsuit in which Mrs.
Pernot was the defendant and resulted
in judgment in favor of her daughter.
Mrs. Pernot at that time swore that
Emile was not Barre's child, but the
offspring of herself and another man,
and that her daughter was aware of the
fact. On the other hand the child and
her friends strenuously denied this and
claimed that such an assertion was q
barbarous falsehood concocted for the
purpose of defeating her rights to q
portion of the estate OF the deceased.
Mrs. Pernot and her husband, after the
daughter and her guardian ad Item had
obtained judgment and an execution
fo- the sale OF q lot on Los Angeles
street, brought suit against Constable
L. D. Rogers to enjoin him from selling
the property upon which be had levied.
and the case was heard before Judge
York yesterday. This resulted in q
first point for Emile. as the injunction
was denied and judgment rendered with
costs for defendant.
This matter had no sooner been set
tied than Mr.. Pernot appeared in depart
ment two before Judge Clark to prose-
cute her petition for the removal OF Mrs.
| Thureton as guardian of the person OF
her daughter. Emile and q number of
interested parties were in attendance.
Mrs. Pernot took the stand, and stated
that her daughter had lived with her
until last August, when she sent her
away to look for work, since she would
not do any at home. Emile went to
Mrs. Thurston, who employs her now
as a ealeswoman. Since that time her
daug hter had refused to see or even to
speak to petitioner, and had declined to
call when her mother was confined.
Emile, witness averred, had made no
claim upon any part of Mr.. Barrels es-
tate until after she met Mrs. Thurston,
because she knew that she was not his
daughter.
Mrs. Pernot admitted her willingness
to allow the court to select a convent
school at which the child should be
educated, the mother superior to be her
guardian, and Mrs. Pernot agreeing to
pay all expenses incidental to the edu-
cational course. Witness objected very
much to Mrs. Thurston, because she
prevented the resumption OF amicable re-
lations between the mother and dRught-
or. She wae sure that the child had
only become disobedient since her &C.
quaintanceship with Mrs. Thurston last
year.
On cross-examinatiOn Mrs. Pernot
stated that she had married Barre in
Paris in June. 1880; but question by
the attorney for the guardian, whether
the wedding ceremony had been cele-
brated civilly or by priest promptly
brought forth an objection by attorney
for petitioner, and some discussion en-
sued, during which the certificate of
birth of the oause of all the trouble was
displayed, showing that Emile WAS
born in Paris in 1877, the daughter OF
Marie Felix and an unknown father.
The court here took hand in the
proceedings by stating that when Emile
Barle reached the age OF IA she OBJ
taiped, under the statutes of California,
the right to choose her own guardian.
She had done go, and the court did not
think he had any right to step in and in
terfere with her choice.
This being the case, the attorney for
the petitioner offered to dismiss the pro-
ceedings without prejudice, and it was
30 ordered, costs in the case to be taxed
to the estate. This was Miss Emilie's
second time to score on the same day.
1t is understood that the matter will
again come up in some other shape.
a