Albuquerque morning journal. [volume] (Albuquerque, N.M.) 1903-1926, 1914-07-25

~ 10 this envelope. u was pointed
| cut ~ counsel FOR the defendants on
| the argument that the printing on the
back tncTcpf differs from thai In use
IN 1910. ana is the same IS was used
upon thess hotel envelopes ln 1905.
y "a urged. ana with some reason.
thai this envelope may have been one
inelosed Ia some letter of Garcia dur
ing 1905. instead 0f with this letter
" March y 1910. Plaintiffs exhibit
lI44h. however. the letter written rs
Garcia IN his own handwriting to the
sister stella dated March no, 1910.
contains The statement. II wrote you
q week or ten DAYS ago. and also 10
o., but 50 far not letter from either
one This D. therefore, deeara-
ton from Garcia that he did write a
letter abpui March 3. 1910. 10 Bessie
spelrht. hut the question Nul rec
iNcrtt, IL the letter here rendered the
letter be wfetel Independent Of the
oral proof OF Bessie speight ana per
haps her sister. there is nothing tnl
I connect this letter with Garcia, and
there Is the discrtdItine circumstance
iof the misspeliinE above referred TO- A
Circumstance connected with Exhibit
] ie-b. which also bears against It's
benuineness is this statement con-
fttfAfN tA'N'AtA MNH MWM NNfh
the sheep and 10 Will be- about thirty
days yet before they are ready for
market. 80 / viii be- detained that
much longer. This letter was writ +
ton from the kaiarrhoff hotel in chit I
cage, On March y, 1910. Mr.. Traucr !
who was In Chicago with Mr Garcia 4
on tho date this letter WAS written /
was called by plaintiff az witness 10 7
the present eause He testified that
there weIo no sheep shearcd upon this +
trip. and that Garcia went along pure
IS as his companion and had no in- /
tcrest whatever In the sheep The
fneta thus testified 90 by one who j. +
apparently o reliable witness. contra
diet the statements tn this letter in
two respects. First. as TO their be-
ing engaged in he fheafing Of The
sheep. ana. second. as 10 Garcia's bee
ing detained by this fact when ne o
matter 81 fact. he had no interest
whatever Ia the sheep. and. accord
ing fo Afr Traucr. was froe 10 60 af
he pleased. Nh Tfaucr testified also 4
that Garcin upon this trip carried
no typewriter along with him And
a being mutually conceded that all ,
Of THESE three exhibits, i44-b. lf5 and ,
li6-h were written upon the same +
II Va uncomfortable how j
three letters two written in Aibu- +,
quorquc and one In Chicago could .
have been written upon the same type- /,
writer when that typewriter ala not n
20 To Chicago. This leaves only one
explanation, that all three letters were !,
written at the same place. and that !
either iiG-b was not written in Chi /,
rago. as il purports 20 be- or i44-b :
ana l45 were not written in Alhu- n
luernue as they purpoft 20 be. This "a
cads To- tho further View that all three Il
etters. were. IN view If the necessi- a
lies Of The case, written long after the !,
late. ,hss hsa. ~ sofne ere place by 4,
he same instrument. aud with view +,
% providing the necessary acknowi- n
.dgemcnt OF the paternity of the
hid As against this latter there b., a
however. the circumstance that II
heae letters were fabricated they L
we're not made stronger than they Il
ire Manufactured letters would ma
urally have gone to an explicit ac-
10 terms OF the pa-
ernity Of the child rather than the
use Of language depending for its
trongth largely upon inference. How
ver IL Is a peculiar circumstance that
" al the numerous letters Which
Bessie SpeiEht testfes We're received
" her from Garcia. after birth OF the
hid, the only ones preserved are
hose entirely in typewriting and with
mt the scratch Of the pen thereon
them as coming from Gar n
ia. Bessie speight explains this upon v
ne ground hat her husband Wilson
aused her after their marriage 10 de-
troy these letters from time TO time
iut IL Is remarkable that the letters
ovefing her years of intimacy with
iarela were preserved with such com
.lcte sequence. for there are some $50
I these in the record but those after
his relationship ceased were prac-
icallg oil destroyed except the two or
hree now being considered, and G.
lhieh, rs we have seen, are entirely In
ypewritttn. ln
eThe conclusion 81 the court. upon .,
uch Of the controlling questions Of q,
he ease. is that the plaintiff has fail h,
Il 60 sustain her allegations By a fu
reponderanee of che evidence. While IA
he law under certain circumstances -
ives The right of inheritance to ille- =,
itimate children. II has placed about y,
uch inheritance eert4ln safeguards -
he danger that thd@Fstates Of de-
oased persons shall g. subjected To H.
laims inspired hY mole cupldity or ~
v Inducements held out, rather than
y a consciousness Of the possession ~
right. calls for the careful mainto q.
anee Of these safeguards by the ~
ourts Where the facts bring a case ~
ithin the terms ol the law. such u
Ialm fhould OF course. be recognized ~
nd upheld The testimony here pre- eil
mt however. fails to carry the nee w
'sary conviction iustfYing decree DC
istainng plaintiffs claim. and the N
'het prayed must accordingly be de- NJ
led en-
A lecree VIII be drawn dismissine
lafotfffia lin 80 ..s,,,,.fatnt - main IA