The herald., 1898-12-09
NOT HIS DAUGHTER
Mrs. Lauterbach Fails to Establish
Fact of Her Paternity

| An opinion has been rendered by Judge
Shaw in the settlement OF the suit brought
by Mrs. Lizzie Lauterbach against Mrs. Rosa
Voss and her S-year-old daughter, Pearl, for
the purpose of securing a decree OF court
affirming her relationship as daughter of
Frederick Voss, deceased, the husband and
father of the defendants.
The alleged father of Mrs. Lauterbach
and his first wife, Henrietta Noss, beth being
dead, there was 10 direct evidence oil the
fact of the birth OF plaintiff, but twenty
| five witnesses testified in her behalf as to the
relationship. Judge Shaw holds that their
evidence establishes beyond question that
| Lizzie, from her infancy, was kept by the
alleged parents and in all respects treated
| by them in the same manner as they would
naturally treat their own child; that thay
| both called her their daughter when speak
ing to her and OF her, introduced her as their
| daughter and manifested as much affection
| for her as parents ordinarily have for their
children.
| Three or four of the witnesses related con-
versations with one or the other OF the al
legged parents, giving details attending the
! birth of plaintiff and the attendance as mid
wife of an Indian squaw, who gave the child
pair of moccasins in commemoratlon OF
| the event. All these circumstances, the
opinion states, in the absence of evidence to
the contrary would be amply sufficient to
establish beyond reasonable doubt the par
entage of the plaintiff as she alleged it to be.
But twenty-nine witnesses, equally as
credible as those of plaintiff, testified on be-
| half of defendants to a number OF conver-
sations had with Frederick Voss and Hen
| rietta Noss at different times, In the course
of which they declared that plaintiff was
not their real daughter, but was the child
of a man named Sherman, that her mother
| died when she was very young and that
Noss and wife took the plaintiff and reared
her as their own child.
Judge Shaw holds that these conversations
and declarations in the absence OF other
evidence, are amply sufficient to establish
| the fact that the plaintiff is not the child
| of Voss He goes on to say that there is no
doubt in his mind that the witnesses on both
sides were testifying to the truth as they
| believed it to be- and that the conversations
related occurred substantially as they stated.
The decision must, therefore, rest on the
comparative probability of the respective
contentious 1t says, in part:
aside from the declarations concerning
the birth of the plaintiff the various circum
stances related by her witnesses are not nee
essarily inconsistent with the theory that
she was not the issue of Frederick Voss and
| Henrietta Noss but was their foster child.
. Except to very intimate acquaint-
ances, and to them only on special occasions
when making explanation of the case, the
true birth of the child would not ordinarily
be apparent from the conduct or conversa-
tion of the foster parents
Judge Shaw is of the opinion that the cir
cumstances related as to the birth of Lizzie
and the gift of the moccasins must have oc-
Cured as stated, but that they were men
| toned with reference to the doings of Sher-
man and wife and not OF Voss and WIFE The
latter may have been misunderstood by de-
| PENDANTS or Intentionally misled as to the
facts, whereas the positive denials of pater-
nifty made to witnesses for defendants 1t
| seems incredible should have been made un-
less they were true. Taking the whole case,
Judge Shaw believes the most probable ex-
panation of the contradictory declarations
is that Mrs. Lauterbach was not the issue of
Voss and that he and his first wife were ac-