The record-union. [volume] (Sacramento, Calif.) 1891-1903, 1899-05-05

pliance with the Acts of Congress. They
are now produced in evidence, especially
the crew list and passenger list OF the
trip made in May, ending June l, 1916,
when the ship entered the port OF New
York
The crew list shows that no such
sailor, person or individual as }. +.
Moliere was on her in any capacity IN
May and June, 1916, or on any TRIP
made during the year 1916. Since the
development of this fact Moliere was
again examined, and says he was
sailor boy, got on the ship in an lrres-
ular way, and therefore was not on
the list. Unfortunately for him the hst
shows the Captain accounted for an
the persons who came on board at
Liverpool or New York in an Irregular
way, and it is not likely he Would
have incurred the heavy penalties o.
the law and omitted him. Besides
Moiiere was born in Donaldsonvlle,
La, on August n, 1888; was 10 years
8 months and 3 days old in June, 1916,
when an English girl of l9, as ne
sweaIs, offered to show him the sights,
not of New York, where she was going
to, but of London, England, where she
was born. 1t is proved that this j.
F. Moliere was an enlisted soldier in
the Confederate army, deserted, came
to New Orleans, entered the detective
service of the United States Govern
ment in this city when occupied by
the Federal forces under General
Banks, and was employed in said SER
vice with John Price, the detective en-
ployed in this case by the State; that
Moliere and Price We're convicted by
this Government in some smuggling
transaction and sentenced to the Dry
TortugaS, but the sentence was never
carried out because their services were
of such great value to the Govern
ment in this city. Moliere is now liv-
ing in Washington, D. c., drawing
pension from the United States Gov
eminent as a Mexican veteran, hav-
ing been present at the battle of Mon
terey, September p, 1916, although he
was then only II years and month
of age. He stands before the court as
discredited witness.
The manifest passenger lists show
that no such passenger or person as
j. A. Peale or Fanny Minerva Sey
mour was ever on the Waterloo in
any capacity in June, 1916, or at any
time during the year 1916. Peale's testi-
mOny was also taken when it appeared
he was not on the passenger list. He,
too, swearS he went on board as
passenger in an irregular way, on the
ticket of some passenger not named,
who did not go. Why Fanny Minerva
Seymour is absent from the list is I'M
explained, although the occupation OF
every passenger, even servants, is given
on the list. Peale stands before the
court discredited by documentary evil
dence of the highest character in an
Office of the Government, signed and
sworn to by the master of the Water
loo in 1916.
1t is a singular fact that in the mass
of testimony taken in this case the
ship Waterloo is mentioned by but two
witnesses, Feale and Moliere How did
the State hear CT the Waterloo, Peale
or Moliere? The information must
have been furnished by the detective
employed, John Price. On the passen-
ger list of the Waterloo of June l,
1916, is one Rose Price, aged u, fe-
male servant, from Ireland, bound for
relation,
any, John Price was or is to this Rose
Price is not known. This fact and
others disclosed by the record con-
nected with Prices early association
with the discredited witness, Moliere.
brings the court to the irresistible con-
clusion that the deceased was never
on the Waterloo, and the whole story
is fabrication of detective origin and
growth. 1t is also further established
by living witnesses who knew the de-
ceased in Ohio and New Orleans that
Rachel Brown and the deceased were
one and the same person.
The rest of the new evidence taken
by the State is mainly an attempt to
prove that Rachel Brown and Sarah
Brown lived in Cincinnati as late as
lS4I, in Bank alley, under the name
of the Stevens sisters and therefore
could not be the Fanny Minerva Sey-
mour, an Englishwoman, who came to
this country in 1876 ON the Waterloo
In this attempt they have utterly
failed. 1t is simply necessary to say
that all the evidence places the two
sisters in 1S47, before they went to
Cincinnati, one as a chambermaid and
the other as a visitor on a steamboat,
the John F. Vinton, running between
Cincinnati and Pittsburg The Vinton
was never built until 1850, and every
witness who swore they were on the
boat in 1917, 1913 or 1S49, swofe to
an impossibility. Besides, the history
OF the Stevens sisters is traced, and
it is proved that neither of them was
Rachel Brown, widow of William r.
Mills, the deceased. It is useless to
state in detail the facts in this con-
nection. With the destruction of the
States theory that the deceased was an
English girl on the Waterloo in June
1916, the States case fails.
Judgment is given recognizing C. c.
Brown and Mrs. Rosanna McVey.
widow of Alfred Fuller, forced heir of
Mrs. Mary Brown, widow Of James
McVey, as the brother and niece and
only forced heirs of Rachel Fanny
Brown, known as Fanny M. Hinckley.
widow of William Reed Mills, and dis
missing the suit of the State of Lou
lSiaEa.