New-York tribune., 1921-10-22

..ons OF the proposition should carry
.he,s own refutation. 1t would be ut
scriy impossible now to bring in every
one who might be n beneficiary of the
VIII and II they cannot all be BROUGHT
IN, why any? The plaintiff. although
master of tho litigation, has never
sought In his action against Guy to nut
any construction on this will. He can
stand up and demur to the bringing Of
this action. An examination OF lepnI
authorities shows that actions for al
Vorce arc regulated by the statutes
ana tnat the courts have been Jealous
70 exeiudc iseues not strictly included
IN the limits of that action"
Individual Rights safeguarded
Judge jerks contended that IL the
parties named in the motion should be
brought in as co-defendants it would be
necessary to arnend the complaint. Nc
matter what the number, each would
nave an absolute right to plead indi.
viuuaily, and could not be compelled tc
accept the reference of the case to q
referee or to accept the evidence al.
ready taken, he said. He pointed out
that they would have the right to have
the case tried by court and by jury
and could be present when witnesses
are sworn in.
Mr.. Brennan said that his client, Mrs
Stillman. did not oppose the motion
made in behalf OF Guy. He objected tc
Judge jerks speaking on behalf of the
absent relatives of James A. Stillman
since he was ostensibly appearing in
tho interest of the plaintiff.
~ cannot conceive that the relatives
Of the plaintiff would come into court
and attack the legitimacy of the child
said Mr.. Brennan. "There is nothing
to warrant the assumption that they
will. 1t Is amazing that the father has
forming his full duty if he did not
make this notion
Without mentioning them by name
Mr.. Mack spoke of the other children
Of James A. Stillman as being prepared
to stand by Guy. He suggested tina,
they be brought into court and, with
out being sworn, be asked to make 8
statement as to their attitude An
swering Judge Jenks's argument that
1t was now late for Mr.. Mack's motion
he said 1t was never too late to do Jus.
tice. and that it would hardly be rea.
sonable to direct such an objection
where three-year-old infant was con
cerned.
Judge jerks replled that 1t would be
futile to look for immediate adjudica-
tion II the others should be made party
defendants. He argued that they could
require retrial of the entire case if
they desired.
Mr.. Mack replied to this, speaking for
Guy in the first person, as follows:
"This infant, through me, his coun-
sci and guardian ad litem, says in eff
feet to this court: The family of my
father is against me in my efforts to
protect my good name. I believe ! can
protect my good name if the matter
is finally adjudicated at this time, but
if 1t is not finally settled now, years
later, when the witnesses by which
can now establish the legitimacy OF
my birth may have died or become
incompetent to testify, or have other,
wise become unavailable, may not be
able to protect my name
"Mr. jerks has asked the court tc
use It's head and not its heart" Mr.
Mack continued. ~ say use both. II
they want jury, we are satisfied
After all, the whiphand does not apply
to q court of equity. If they find that
Guy is illegitimate let him go some
where and hide his head. But if they
find him legitimate, for Gods sake
let him live. This child should have
q chance to fight for his life now"