Shepherdstown register. [volume] (Shepherdstown, Va. [W. Va.]) 1849-1955, 1905-01-12
After rdore OF the Rouss Estate.

A new trial of the case Of little
Charles B. Rosseau, who sued, through
his guardian, the estate Of the late
Charles Broadway Rouss, the we'll
known Virginian, who made millions
as A., merchant in New York, for 800
600, has been ordered by the Court
of Appeals, which rever,es the YER
dict of the New York Supreme Court.
The boys guardian, Alfred Fischer,
alleged that Mr.. Rouss had promised
to pay 100000 to him for nainte-
nance and support after he reached
the age of 10 years. Mr.. Rouss died
before the boy wa, 10 years old.
TIL. contrary ruling by the higher
court is founded on the testimony Of
the mother, Eva Figgott Ros,eau.
The decision of tn. Court of Appeals
was not unanimous, being reached by
. majority Of four to three Of the
Judges.
During the trial of the case in the
Supreme Court it developed that the
executors of the estate had paid to
Mrs. Ros,eau after Mr.. Rouss death
$23, 900 in cash in consideration Of
her signing a release to all claims for
dover rights. The defense set up
that this release included any claim
tne son might have against the estate,
but the mother denied this.
The opinion Of the Court is in part
as follows:
1.-THE story of Mrs. Eva Rosseau,
the mother, as told by her at the trial,
is in substance as follows; Her real
name is Eva Figgstt, but she as
sumed the name Of Rossesu on Sep
TENDER 90, 1891. She met Mr.. Rouse,
the decedent, in December, 1880.
The boy was born on June 5, 1892,
and Mr.. Rouss in many ways and on
various occasions acknowledged that
he was his father. Commencing in
1896, he made an allowance Of $40 a
week for the support of the mother
and child, and this continued until he
died, on March 8, 1902.
He was deeply attached to the
boy and openly associated with him,
and to some extent with his mother,
although until 1898 he had a wife
and was living with her.
in the spring Of 1901 there was a
quarrel between the father and moth
er and she told him that she intended
to leave the city and take the boy
with her, in order to rear the child in
better surroundings. He strenuously
objected, and said that she might 60,
but he did not want her to take the
boy with her; that while preferred
she should not go, if she did, he want
ed the boy left il the city. He then
continued, according to the statement
of Mrs. Rousseau:
Remember that, if you do so, !
will settle upon Charley, when he ID
10, the sum of 100000. 1t is moth
ing. am a rich man. my children
will have plenty. don't mind that
little amount of money. l will give
it to Charley for his support, but be
must be reared as my son. He must
have the best that the money that !
now give provides. want him to
have the best raising; want him tc
be raised Christian gentleman.
"She said
al don't want to stay here. l am
tired, but if it is best for my boy,
and if you will give him 100000 a,
you say, l submit to your view fol
his sake.
Shortly afterward, as he handed
Mrs. Rosseau 5000 to enable her and
the boy to visit the exposition at Buff
falo, be said
az won't give you any more money
than this. Remember my contract
that you bring the boy back. Lei
me have the pleasure of his society
My life is hard one-sad. I am an
old man; l am lonely; l am blind
The music of his voice is the sweetest
l hear. l want him. miss him
l need him. Don't deprive me o.
this one favor. Bring him back. Dc
as l tell you. Keep him in the city
and when be is 10 years old l vii
give the money that IprOmised him
100000.
Judge Vann then said that Mrs
Rosseau was the only witness who
was present when the alleged agree
ment was made, but that her story
was corroboratsd to some extent by
three witnesses, who testified to ad'
missions said to have been made by
Mr.. Rouss.
Thus" said the Court, 1.-The evil
dence relied upon to establish the
contract is, first, the testimony Of The
mother, whs tried to swear $1,000
into the pocket of her own child, and
second, the testimony of witnesses
who swear to the admissions Of deat
man. The former is dangerous; tn,
latter is weak, and Leither should b.
acted upon without great caution.
With bare majority opinion re
vsrsing the verdict for more thar
100000 in the boys favor, the out
come Of the second trial will be await