The New York herald., 1922-09-30
Continued from First Page.

to H. W. Hazen. Deputy County Clerk.
None but few village stragglers were
around the Court House and none of the
famous counsel WHO have reaped fair
sized fortunes from the litigation were
present to witness the ending. 1t Was in
the same Court House two years ago that
Stilman flied his first complaint.
Both parties to the suit were at widely
separated points when the decision was
made Stilman was in New York. in
accessible to inquiry, and Mrs. Stillman
was in Grande Anse. Canada, where she
received word of the decree by telegraph.
Stillman was in close touch with his
attorneys by telephone but remained Sc
cluded and announced there would be no
comment on the outcome.
John f. Brennan. who has guided
Mrs. Stillman through the intricacies OF
the suit. and Mr.. Mack, guardian Of the
boy, were both elated over the decision.
Mr. Mack said it was the only one that
a fair minded referee could reach.
After 1t became plain TO Stillman
that he couldn't prove the illegitimacy
of Guy" he said. 'he sought only to be-
smirch his wifes name"
Stfllman ON 1ncht TIP.
Late in the afternoon Stillman and
three, friends motored from New York
TO Glen Cove, L. l.. and boarded the
newly christened Wenonah H. for a week
end cruise to the National Golf Club on
Peconic Bay, near Southampton Still
man appeared unmoved by the decision.
and maintained the same composurc
that has characterized his social life
since the beginning of the suit regard
less of how strong the tide of evidence
turned against him.
The Wenonah ii. Is the former Mod
esty. the yacht made famous in the case
as the seagoing home of Mrs. Leeds.
No one seemed to know yesterday where
Mrs. Leeds ia living. since she has not
been seen with Stillman for many
months.
Case to Go Before TOmplxins.
Justice Morschauser has apparently
incurred the enmity of the Stillman coun-
sci. for the moment 1t was announced
that Mr.. Mack would apply for confirma-
ton steps were taken to have the matter
placed before Supreme Court Justice
Tompkins. Justice Morschauser has
presided at all the open hearings. and
Il was he who granted Mrs. Stiilman the
lowed testimony to be taken at Montreal
last spring ever the protest of the still
man lawyers.
If Stillman takes an appeal the belief
| Is that the case will not reach the APP
pellate Division much before January
| and a review of the testimony and an
argument thereon would probably con-
sumo six months or more In the event
Mrs. Stillman should retaliate with a
divorce suit the findings OF the referee
could not be offered in evidence, accord
Ing to one of the lawyers.
1 Report OF Referee Gleason.
! Referee Gleason's report in part Is
as follows Mrs. Stillman is invariably
named as the adult dcfendant' to diff
! ferentiate from Guy Stillman, who is a
co-defendant in the actionl:
/ This Is a very unusual action, as
! IL clearly appears without contradic-
ton that since at least as early as
1916, and ever since that date, dur
ing the continuance of this action and
down to at least March. 1921, the
I plaintiff has been intimate with a
woman not his wife, known as Flor
encc W. Leeds; has supported and
maintained her as his wife in various
places and in various apartments.
That during the period she has
given birth TO two children who have
been recognized by him as his chill
dren has supplied her with motor
cars and jewelry, supervised her bank
account and has borne the same rela-
tions with her as a man ordinarily
bears to his own wife.
The proof on this subject was so
overwhelming and convincing that the
plaintiffs attorneys frankly stated to
the referee that no denial would be
! ifade on these charges, and upon the
uncontradicted proof / find that the
plaintiff has lived with one Florence
III. Leeds from tho year 1916 to at
least the early part Of 1921.
Decision in Guys Case.
"a more serious question Is presented
as 20 the legitimacy Of the infant de-
4 fendant Guy Stillman.
AS the infant defendant. Guy
Stillman was concedcdly born in law
full wedIock. the burdcn.of establishing
his illegitlmacy Is upon the plaintiff,
and the plaintiff must establish such
iliegitimacy by clear and irrefutablc
proof and beyond a reasonable doubt.
i The presumption OF fact Of leglti-
macy Is one of the strongest known
to the law. and. OF course. II cannot
be overthrown except by evidence
which Is stronger. The burden or
proof Is upon tho party asserting IL
legitimacy. .
1T Is claimed by the plaintiff (Still-
mani that during the period from
Christmas OF 1917 TO March of 1918
the plaintiff was never at the home OF
che adult defendant at Pleasantvllc
and that there was no meeting at any
other place.
"-rhe evidence on the part of the
plaintiff az 10 non-access Is not salts
factory and does not convince me.
"The plaintiff has failed TO overcome
the presumption of legitimacy, and
therefore find the defendant Guy
Stillman, 10 be the legitimate child OF