The herald., 1898-11-30
MANY WITNESSES CoNTRovERT
LIzzIE's CLAIM
STATEMENTS OF HOTEL MAN
Before Death He Repeatedly Denied
All Blood Relationship With
Mrs. Lauterbach

| a decree OF court establishing the tact OF heI
relationship as daughter of Mr.. Voss by his
first wife, Henrietta.
Mrs. Lauterbach was recalled for further
Examination, and testified briefly, after
which Ben White, a real estate agent, tes.
titled to the execution of bill of sale OF a
lodging house by Mr.. Voss and as to Voss
circumstances, whereupon the plaintiffs at.
torneys rested her case.
The defendant, Mrs. Voss, testified that
she came to Los Angeles in June, 1887, and
took a room at the st. Charles hotel for one
week. Being acquainted with one of the girls
in the dining room, she went nthere to talk
with her. and while there met Frederick
Voss, who invited her to go to the theater
with him that evening. She accepted the
invitation, and they had an enjoyable even.
ing.
| Next morning she desired to call on her
sister, who lived out on Seventh street, and
Noss volunteered to carry her there in his
buggy She stayed to lunch, but in the after
noon Voss called and took her for ride
and then back to the hotel. While riding
about the city he made her proposal OF
marriage. which she promised to consider.
In order that she might act advisedly,
Voss had rehearsed the experiences of his
life. During that conversation he had told
her that he had been married twenty-seven
years previous, but his wife had died, never
having borne him children. He was alone
in the world, lonely and longed for domes-
tic comfort, which was denied to him in his
single condition.
At that time he had related the circum-
stances by reason OF which he and his first
wife had reared the girl Lizzie. He said
there was poor Jewish family by the name
of Sherman living at White Pine, New,
where he was formerly engaged in business.
One day one of the children came running
TO his store to say that her mother was
sick and to ask that he go to the house.
Going up with the child, he found the
mother dead. The father, who was drunken
peddler, urged lin to take one of the three
children to bring up, pleading his own pow
erty and the hopeless condition of the little
Jones.
Mr.. Voss said he had refused to take the
child, but when he got home his wife inter
ceded for it, saying she was chidless and
they had an abundance and could well afford
to undertake the expense of bringing up the
youngest of the three. On her solicitation he
had at last gone back and brought Lizzie
home to his wife. The girl was in a sadly
neglected condition, and they had to place
her in a tub of warm water TO soak off her
clothes, which adhered to her skin.
Lizzie was then years old, and they be-
came attached to the little thing, treating her
as their own child. On one occasion they
took her to San Francisco, where sister
of her dead mother recognized the girl and
asked by what means they came into posses
sion of the child. All the circumstances of
her mothers death were related and, being
convinced of the charitable intentions of
Mr.. and Mrs. Voss, the San Francisco aunt
had desired to present clothing to Lizzie,
but this was declined The San Francisco
people were quite we'll to do, being in trade,
ard therefore able to provide foI Lizzie, but
the Vosses would not give her up
The story told by Mr.. Voss was consid-
cred by the witness and in about two weeks
they were married. She never worked as
a hired girl or at all for Voss until after her
marriage.
When telling defendant about his past life,
on the day of their buggy ride, he had said
Lizzie had been bad girl and occasoned
them much trouble. After the marriage
Lizzie came to the st. Charles to complain
that she could not live with her second hus-
band, Ball, any longer, and to ask that her
father aid her in securing divorce In de-
fendants presence, Voss had upbraided Liz
zie, telling her the trouble with Ball was of
her own making and due to Balls partner,
n young man, who had meddled in the case.
Being angry, Voss told her to leave his house
and never to return, that she was not his
daughter and that he had merely brought
her up. Mrs. Ball had gone away crying and
defendant never knew of her coming again
to the house.
The defendant described Voss as having
blue eyes ana a light complexion, pretty
brown hair, but fair, description almost
opposed to that which might
be given of Lizzie, the plaintiff in this suit.
Mrs. Voss also testified to going with
Ninall to the county poor farm in buggy
to see Bedford, the old man who testified for
Mrs. Lauterbach last week. While there the
old man had told them of conversation he
had at one time with Voss, in which the
dead man had said Lizzie was not his daugh-
ter, having been merely brought up by him;
that Pearl, one of the defendants in this
case, was his only daughter and that he
never had other children.
j. NJ Voss, an attorney, and not related
to the Voss family by blood, was the next
witness. He testified to having acted as
for Frederick Voss or various occa-
sions, and to the fact that the latter had
brought j. d. Ball to his office and intro
duced him to the witness, saying that Balls
wife had sued him for divorce, and ne had
recommended him to see Attorney Voss and
arrange with him for his defense.
The attorney said: 81 am astonshed that
you should bring Ball here to take action in
a divorce case in opposition to your daugh-
ter" To this Voss had replied: "She is not
my daughter" With such declaration the
attorney had been satisfied, arranged with
Ball to act as his counsel and in the end had
been paid by Ball for his professional SER
vices.
In pursuance of his duties as Balls attor-
ney and in response to Balls expressed de-
sire, Attorney Voss had gone to Moye Wicks'
office to see if some compromise could not
be effected and prevent the continuance of
divorce proceedings, Wicks being Mrs. Balls
attorney.
There he had met Mrs. Ball, another lady
and Mr.. Wicks. Voss had expressed re-
yrets that father and daughter should ap-
pear in conflict in the matter saying that
Mrs. Balls father had introduced her hus-
band to him with view of hiding him in
his opposition to the divorce. To this Mrs.
Rall had said, or the other lady had said
N Mrs. Balls presence: "She isn't MIR.
Voss'' daughter" or '1 am not his daugh- |
.er." This confirmation of Voss' statement
lenyinQ paternity had thoroughly estab-
ished the witness in the belief that no blood !