The Seattle post-intelligencer. [volume] (Seattle, Wash. Terr. [Wash.]) 1888-1914, 1894-09-30


Ssooseckion and beneat Of rasss-~a
nbsao1s attempting - fa~s.sass !.
- status af the parents a. d.
= 1&ak Or hxlEg their rights - married
$50 " DOES give rights 10 the il. ssrs.rss
.Eslass ard asvzng that ebaeet IN
- -. snsss should De gsren 20 il sce0rfsng
Ehss spssA. because IL is . Igss 1aw.
cafastArcss a. 10 i~ava - s-s.s
slyana Tor doubling th~sr parensage
-. acre there IL no proaansissv Of IN
laslee icing done BIZ Imposing ar,esss
an Spurious offspring. il seems e IA.
49, snar his ehiitrea shoasd iuherst his
~sss.-' ais Law provides not oaiy for the
sA.aaFen 81 void marriages. and ehlsd-er,
born ont Of wedloex ~hoss rerent< nr.s-.
arc married, but provides spec ticalIy for
sso1en 81 unmarried persons xho live
ana eohAbit together as man and wife and
1rsAAfes mat such cssildren shall be l~rsti-
I1- Nov, If the testimony Of Richar
jena David II. Webster. and those other
people, % the actgal fact that Peggy and
FRANK Matth.ss did live together a. man
and wife and kept house torether eesare
and after the birth of this Plaintiff. Be
Tue, then under that Iaw she IL entitled
20 ~ the rights Of \ legitimate child of
fanx Matthias ICope va Cope. LIT e.
The question which I have to decide
on this evidence is whether ID Is proved
s maj FRANK Matthias and Peggy did so
ave together. The testimony of Mr..
siisishers and Mr.. Butter and others who
sere intimate friends Of Frank Matthias,
inae they did not knoH that to be the fact.
70 perhaps INCONSISTENCY with the fact. III
IL hard To imagine that it could be 40 and
neigh Dors and friends Of Mr.. Matthias not
KNOW u, bat cannot say that il 10 i'm
Possap.s. lie may have been cunning
"A "A 4as III
ihssa other witnesses who testified posi-
siveiy TO the fact had equal msans of
knowledge with those who deny IL They
had ssery opportunity 10 kaow IL If il
we're 80 They have no interest in this
case 20 induce them 10 testify falsely. and
unless Fraak Matthias and Peggy lived
together they have wilIfully and without
any inducemens or reason far Il
testified 70 that which 10 absolutely
untrue and which they must have
known WAS untrue. Now there are
ten OF them. / find, who have with par
ncuiarifv and positiveness asserted that
upon different occasions they found this
woman In Frank Matthias house doing
his homework: that he recognized her as
his woman and made no concealment of
IL. might possibly dlscredlt the tastl-
mony Of some Of these witnesses on the
ground that they are not worthy of belief,
but IL 10 straining matters q great deal 10
discredit sho testimony of ten. including
men Of mature age and good repute. DO
not believe that Mr. Snli;hers, Mr. Van
ASSET and Mr.. Horton have made any
niisslstements. aud do not have 10 find
that they testified falsely in order 70 find
the fact in favor OF this complainant. IL
IL hard 10 understand how they could
have been deceived in that matter; still il
Ia possible that they might have been.
Ny conclusion Is that there is fair
- a
this complainant to the fact that her
mother and Frank Matthias lived together
as man and wife before and after the COM
plainant's birth; and upon that prepond-
erance of evidence she Is entitled to ind
ing in her favor. The laws of this state I'm
force at the time OF the death OF Frank
Matthias entities this complainant as his
Only lineal descendant to receive his es-
tate; and will decree that she IL so enti-
tleds