The morning call., 1894-01-24
The Case May Yet Go to the
Federal Courts.
MANY POINTS ARE RAISED.
CARRIER, Delmas, Lyons, Holiday and
Gear Present Many Phases of
the Celebrated Case.

actions commenced under section 1864 of
the Code of Civil Procedure, opened with
the reply of ex-Judge John CARRIER TO the
attorneys representing the Blythe Com
pany. The standing of the company as
contestants was attacked in line with the
arguments advanced the previous day by
Mr.. Bergin. Mr.. CARRIER held that no argu-
ments not heretofore ruled upon by the
court in the case of the Williams claim
ants had been advanced by counsel for
that company, and then proceeded 10 cite
authorities in support of his contention.
Mr. CARRIER reviewed the various pro-
ceedings had, referred to the brief on file
and argument of Mr.. Delmas, in which no
error was charged upon which could be
based either motion for new trialor an
appeal from the judgment of the lower
court. The claims of alice Edith" as the
alleged widow were referred to in scath-
ing terms. SIS there any reason" asked
Mr.. CARRIER, "why the ordinary rule of
practice should not be applied to this
case?" Continuing he said: There will
be no end TO litigation Of this kind, and
otherwise the claims OF all parties would
be set at naught."
The counsel argued that the decision in
the Williams appeal was final. and in
stanced the Probate Court acting in rem
to proceed in accordance with that de-
cisiOn. The Probate Court found that
Florence was the daughter OF Thomas III.
Blythe and his heiT-at-law.
THE findings Of Judge Coffey stand as
bar to the Blythe Company coming on
and claiming an interest in the Blythe
estate. The whole domain OF Jurisprudence
was ransacked by as able counsel as ever were
heard In case. Every question was urged
that human research could discover, that
human Ingenuity could suggest, yet no error
has been shown by APP ellants in the findings
OF Judge Coffey, and therefore the Blythe Com
pany have no standing In court"
Mr.. CARRIER, referring 10 The argument OF MIR.
DelmaS that there was not sufficient evidence
TO prove that the four letters testified 10 by
Hart as being written by Blythe and not prop
erly witnessed In accordance with section 1857,
SAID that the learned court sitting IN judgment
on this proposition were intelligent enough not
TO consider for moment the speclOus argu-
ments of counsel. They knew well the conf
dence existing between old men and their attOr-
neYs. They love TO talk 10 them; they become
conndentlal; they become Gatrulous ana con-
/ Tide TO them al that time secrets that otherwise
would remain forever locked IN their hearts.
perhaps Mr.. Hart erred" said MIR. CARRIER,
"tn accepting u contingent Zee IN the case and
then going on the stand as The principal wit
ness. He might have been magnanim0us, given
ms services Tor nothing, yet such was his prlyi-
| lege, which none can deny MIN.
There is no doubt about the genuineness of
the letters. There is no need of subscribing wit
ness 10 those letters. They are not substitute
i
old mans life, the thought OF the wrong lie was
doing 10 his daughter in England came back 10
him with redoubed force. 1t may have called
| back the llaisons had with her mother. Julia
! Ashcroft, who al the time Blythe met her In
| London beautiful woman. She was al
that time 20 years Of age. He was man OF
| the world, and had ample opportunity TO know
! II she was a common woman OF the street, or d
| vrtuous woman. Every line he wrote 10 her
| shows that she was what she claimed 10 be
until she met him, and that she was the mother
/ of his child.
| No issue has been raised OF the question OF
paternity. No evidence has been produced tC
! show that julia Ashcroft was not what Blythe
| supposed her to be, pure and viIiuOus
| woman. Blythe was in London for five months
after he first met her, and there was no doubt IN
| his mind that she was the mother of his child
! ID. NJ. Delmas closed the argument by stating
that sympathy should cut no figure in the case
| 1t must stand on It's merits, upon The cold prop
| Ositlons of the law. The trouble in the case
| according to Mr.. DeimaS. Is In the failure tC
closely follow the statute. and in misconcep
| ton and misunderstanding OF its issues. Mr.
! Delmas explained the legai standing OF the
! Blythe Company In the proceeding. The Liver
! pool Blythes, so called, formed of number OF
! claimants, united their issue, just the same as
! has been done in the CTOch er estate, and Ia
| other large undertakings. TO avoid the trouble
which would arise from multiplicity of inter
| ests.
After the noon recess, Timothy J. Lyons rep
resentiug William and David Savage, made a
| general argument upon the various points al
| issue. MIR. Lyons endeaYored during his hour
/ TO cover the greater portion OF the arguments
| advanced by opposing counsel. He stated that
! IL would be his contention that Florence could
| not be legally adopted because she was not a
| resident OF this State. and had not been such
| up 10 the time the alleged adoption Is said Ia
| have taken place. consequently the State had
! 20 jurisdiction over her person. "This," said
Mr.. Lyons. may form question upon which
we may have TO ask the Intervention of the
Federal courts"
L. b. Holiday, representing the so-called
Gypsy Blythes, made the sensational argument
nF dau rtadf z rI,a
beaten tack followed by the counsel who pre-
coded him, and launched forth into the ques-
ton OF paternity. Mr.. Holladay's argument
was delivered in an Incisive and almost drama
tic STYLE and he brought out the points i'll a
mastery manner.
"TEe evidence of paternity" said Mr.. Hona-
day. s'is based on evidence adduced by the
plaintiff through the testimony of her mother.
The story told by that mother, her Grandfather
Perry and Kate Be. die is advanced as plenary
proof of paternity. One witness says Indirectly
that Blythe was The father. Another. Joseph
Ashcroft, who knew ten Times as much about
the paternity of the child as Blythr, claims
that she was bis daughter. He had The child
in his arms, kept her at his moiher's house.
while her alleged father was In California writ
Ing letters TO her mother and sending $50
year for her support.
Now. what taIe does this mother tell of her
meeting with the father OF her child She says
she was walking along the street, looking in
the shop windows, as any iady might, when
she noticed Blythe following her. She did not
resent his advances, but instead allowed him
to speak to her; met him time and time again.
and finally yielded. She then tells US that for
the year following, she, believing The promise
OF marriage made 10 her Dy Blythe, remained
true 10 him.
Upon this slender thread is based the entire
fabric OF this case. Upon the single word OF
this woman, whose character Is shrOuded In
mystery. whose habitation in London she de-
ciined 10 speak of or locate, we are asked to
acknowledge the undisputed paternity of this
girl Florence, and by juticial decree declare her
the heiress to millions.
ii. L. Gear. representing the London Savages,
made the last argument OF the day. The claim
OF these contestants is based on their being the
next of kin. Their claim Is that Blythe's real
name was James Savage, and they trace his
identity with the Savage family. Mr.. Gears
argument was general lD the character, closely
following the lines laid down by Mr.. Delmas
Mr. Gear claims that there is no direct counter
evidence against their claim OF hership. which
is the only conflict that could exist. They do
not a.sail the paternity OF Florence, or the
question OF adoption. Tney claim the name of
Blythe is assumed and thus they nave proof Of
Inc place of his BIRTH The finding that the
Williams claimants are next of kin is wrong,
and the savages are the rightful heirs. Mr.. Gear
intImated to The court that there was also
question OF Federal jurisdiction Involved in this
case.
The arguments Will probably cosr to-day
All the claimants have presented Ia cir side of
the case. IL now remains for lie attorneys of