Chariton courier. (Keytesville, Chariton County, Mo.) 1878-current, 1920-12-10
THE DORRANCE CASE
Up to Supreme Court NOw-Millions
at Stake-Legitimacy Issue.

Cilis HeISnOOTnOOuJ won MS suit tOr
share of the millions left by his
grandfather and for the 1000 acre
farm west of this city lef5 to the
tGdily heirs of John Dorrance before
the United States Circuit Court of
Appeals for the Sth district but the
brothers Of John have succeeded in
getting the case before the supreme
court Of the United States for re.
view. Charles Francis Dorrance was
awarded a verdict before the master
in chancery, the district court re-
7ersed the finding Of the master and
the circuit court Of appeals reversed
the district court and supposedly set
tied the matter in favor of Charles
Francis but as stated the case is now
heiore the highest tribunal in the
land and upon its finding will depend
the right to the 1000 acres 'Dorrance
Farm west of town and portion of
The big estate Of Chas. Dorrance, Sr.,
deceased.
The sensational, long and hard bat
ties fought by Mrs. John Dorrance
and her alleged boy for the big prize
and the resistance by heirs of the de-
ceased Chas. Dorrance Sr. make vol
ume of varied interest to disinterest-
led persons who have knowledge of
the testimony but a large part Of
which is not printable.
The petition before the United
States Supreme Court sets forth
among other matter, that John Dor
rance was married to Emma Dor
rance but was childless. In order to
/ produce a remainderman for the por-
tion Of the estate which would be in
trust for John, ne and his wife went
to Saint AIMS Orphan Asylum in st.
Louis in February, 1891 and there,
under the pretense Of desiring to
adopt child, procured a boy baby
and returned to their farm west Of
Keytesville and represented that tie
baby had been born while hey were
in st. Louis and for years presented
him as their child. When the boy was
about 6 months old John and Emma
Dorrance took him to Johns old home
in Pennsylvania and presented him
to his alleged grandparents and they
received him as their grandson. In
1906 John and Emma Dorrance be-
came estranged and John acquainted
his brothers with what are now
claimed by heirs resting The claim
Of Chas. Frances to be the facts con.
cerning the origin of the boy held out
as his son. Suit was brought to es.
tablish the claim to the millions made
! by Chas. Frances Dorrance and tht
case has taken on many phases but
the one determining fact appear
having not yet been finally establish
ed in law. During the early stage'
in order to start with proof as ia,
back as possible to introduce, by con
sent of parties to the suit Mrs. Emm
Dorrance was examined by three diff
! ferent physicians, it is alleged, ant
they each testified "that it was i'm
possible for her to have given brit
to defendant (Chas. Frances) in 1S9
or to any child at any time" Th
Sister of Charity who turned tn
child over to John and Emma Dor
; rance in 1891 claims to have beel
J we'll acquainted with Mrs. Dorranc
! and her testimony appears to be re
lied upon to considerable extent b
the contestants, and taken in conneC
tion with what would appear to b
corroberative testimony given by tn
physicians, the concealment of tn
child for two months alleged, declal
e ed impeachment of the testimony G
D the putative mother, seems to hav
\ been sufficient allegations in come,
tion with the charge that the Circu
Court of Appeals decided teh cas-
on sentimental considerations to q
permission to have a review befol
I the supreme court. The record mac
d in this county for perpetuation {
e testimony in the case is the Elost II
markable ever entered on the bool
of the recorder of deeds but for son
d counsel, and forthwith made, execu
i ed and delivered to his recent granto
d deed to the hotel and tho not a
serene and the goose swinging at IL
: usual altitude, party of the first par
hotel, and party of second part, sui
merged farm, are in statu quo, b,
O the owners appear to be yet figurir
4 on what it was that hit them ar
: where.
Our old friend. NJ. 7. DaveI