WHO WAS "THOMAS H. BLYTHE?”
When was Thomas H. Blythe born, and when was Thomas Williams born? Nothing could be clearer from the evidence than the birthday and birth year of the decedent. It is true that he made several contradictory declarations about his birthplace, but the proof is that he was born at Mold, on the 30th of July, 1822; and the evidence in this case, as traced in the deposition of Sarah Roberts and others, gives an account of his childhood and youth up to the time of his leaving for California. He went to school at Mold and received an education better than others of his family; went into a draper’s and grocer’s shop at Ruthen, and then into a draper’s shop at Denbigh, and after that into a clothier’s shop at Liverpool, in which situations he obtained that instruction in business which he afterward turned to account in California. The testimony of William Williams, solicitor, Liverpool, as to the reason of Thomas Williams changing his name to Thomas Henry Blythe, because of business difficulties in which he became involved as a builder, is reasonable and credible; and the testimony of John Breeze
blythe’s business capacity.
When I was considering the testimony of Andrew M. Davis this morning, counsel may have noticed that I paused when I came to Mr. Davis’ sage remark concerning the boast that Mr. Blythe made as to the insignificance of his estate in San Francisco compared with his millions of acres in Mexico, and his speculative enterprises in that country. On Blythe point- • ing to the map of his Mexican possessions, Davis remarked that he hoped that the map would not cost Blythe the estate in San Francisco, shrewdly intimating that the Mexican ventures would wreck the entire estate, if not arrested (as they were subsequently by the court in course of probate administration). It is a case in point with this conversation that it was a singular characteristic of Mr. Blythe that he never engaged in a business enterprise which did not turn out disastrously—as a builder at Birkenhead he failed, and so he did here in various speculations in California; and his lack ■of business capacity as a manager of his own property is illustrated by the improvident lease he made with the Gateleys, and his mortgage of his San Francisco property to carry on the Mexican speculation already alluded to. In that respect, in a business aspect, except for fortuitous acquirement of property on Market street, his life here was consistent with his prior life in the old country. His life here is well known up to the time he went to England in July, 1862. It is unnecessary to go over it again. The year 1863 is a most important one in this case, and the history of that year is very significant, particularly his visit to Mold. The opening
THE FAMILY BIBLE.
The whole statement was supported by the evidence with one exception, and that was a slight discrepancy or "disparity which was commented on with great stress and force by opposing counsel. Mr. Goodfellow announced that they had here a family Bible which, of course, was evidence of the highest dignity—a family record of the births, deaths, and marriages. There was a slight discrepancy between statement and proof, which Mr. Goodfellow in his argument endeavored unnecessarily to reconcile. It was a family record, even though it did not contain every element in the history of each member of the family which was necessary to constitute it a perfect one.
THE PARCHMENT DEED.
It was on the visit to Mold, in 1863, that the parchment deed from Thomas to his brother Charles Williams was executed, the signature, Thomas Williams, being in the handwriting of Blythe. It was unnecessary to prove that by expert evidence; it is one of those things which proves itself, notwithstanding it was shown that people can write on the spot a letter made to order, and manuscripts that will defy ordinary detection as false. That has been shown. Of course Mr. Gumpel did demonstrate that. Mr. Gump el can demonstrate anything in the way of handwriting. The circumstances of that deed are entirely consistent with the deed—besides the fact proved that it was the signature and the act of Thomas H. Blythe.
The letters which have been introduced on behalf of the Williams claimants are beyond any question, in the judgment of the court, genuine; and the court’s judgment at this time, after great reflection and listening to all the evidence, and after as minute an examination as the experts even have given to them, without possessing their capacity of simulation, verifies the very first impression that these documents were genuine—that is, upon inspection, when originally produced in court. The experts in determining the authenticity
THE PARIS LETTER.
The Paris letter to Kyffin Jones, October 19, 1872; Exhibit W. W. No. 2, London, August 26, 1863; Exhibit C. J. D. No. 2, London, August 26, 1863, “P. S. My address in Paris is intended for yourself only. T. W.” That is a very important factor in connection with other matters, and the court has not attempted to exaggerate the importance of it. Exhibit O. J. D. No. 4, Exeter Hall Hotel, Strand, London, Wednesday, 11 A. M., “Please address as above, and consider the address as strictly confidential, and in future, should you permit it, I shall request all my friends in Liverpool and vicinity to direct any communication they might have for me to your care, to. be forwarded to me at your request. Thomas H. Williams.” That, taken in connection with the banker’s testimony, show's that Thomas H. Blythe was there at that time, and that he kept that bank account at Monroe’s Bank; the bookkeeper proves to a demonstration that at that very time this man Thomas Williams was visiting Paris and holding himself out there as Thomas H. Blythe.
THE VISIT TO CHESTER.
The visit to Chester of August, 1870, is important. ‘ The testimony of Thomas Williams, one of the claimants, must be taken as probable. His testimony seems probable in connection with that visit to Chester in August, 1870 (see page 368, volume 4, judge’s manuscript notes), and the Exhibit W. W. No. 4, the Chicago letter, which is a most important contribution to" the literature in this case, and is in itself sufficient to substantiate the allegation of the claim of the Williams claimants.
THE CHICAGO LETTER.
This Chicago letter is indubitably authentic. This letter on its face, at the very moment I saw it, apart from extrane
THE THIRD VISIT OF BLYTHE TO EUROPE.
Then we have the third visit of Blythe to Europe in 1872, in connection with which there is important evidence. W. W. No. 7, letter to “Dear Charles,” Liverpool, no date, written on Washington Hotel paper, was written on a portion of a whole sheet, a part of which was devoted to another letter. Blythe was at Mold from September 5 to 9, 1872, with the exception of a flying visit to Chester. W. W. No. 8, agreement to assign by Sarah Roberts, filled in with writing claimed to be in Blythe’s hand, unexecuted, and Exhibit W. W. No. 9, application for annuity, filled in by Williams, or Blythe, were done on this third visit. That was beyond question given by Thomas H. Blythe in the name of Williams; that was when he was masquerading, so to speak, in his true name. The testimony of Thomas Williams, claimant, as to the relative height of himself and his uncle Thomas, at the time of the latter’s visit, August, 1872, was corroborated afterward in the course of this trial by the safe deposit book. The letter W. W. No. 7, Liverpool, Monday, “My dear Charles,” is a letter which, when compared with the letter to Dr. S. F. Elliott, Williams Exhibit 62, Liverpool, August 23, 1872 (Washington Hotel letter) appears to have been written on the same hotel paper as the latter. There was an endeavor here, and it was partly successful, to show that you can manufacture a paper or writing to order. Of course, that can be done; but the letters upon comparison will speak for themselves. These things cannot be done so deftly that an imposition of that kind, in connection with the rest of it, can be practiced successfully. If this be a
blythe’s provision for his kindred.
There is a point in which Counsel, former Judge Boalt, secured a very strong hold on Counsel Dr. Taylor about the contribution to the young woman Florence. Mr. Blythe was not a very generous provider for his own kin, but I suppose we could account for the relief extended by him to the indigent Sarah Roberts, an inmate of the poorhouse, for the same reason that he endeavored to account, but with a less degree of reason, for his contributions to the support and education and maintenance of Florence Blythe. She had other sources of support, but poor Sarah seemed to be dependent entirely upon Tom, and he out of his abundance made this provision for an annuity, which was a choice between the outside and inside of a poorhouse. The counsel passed this by without remark. It was a very meager pittance. Nevertheless this meagerness does not disprove the relation of the parties, because it very frequently happens that rich men do not wish their poor relations to know of their prosperity, and therefore they make scant allowances, and in this ease there was a very good reason for it. Mr. Blythe’s own declaration was that it would turn the heads of these people if they ever knew how wealthy he was; therefore,, he did not bestow largely of his bounty upon them. I think it was a wise resolve, looked at from a worldly point of view.
the photographs in evidence.
The Kyffin Jones letter, dated October 19, 1872, from Paris, in which “Thomas Williams” inclosed four photographs, “one for your mother, one for Miss Annie, one for
THE PERSONALITY OF THE CLAIMANTS.
Now, with regard to these men, the Williams claimants. There has been a great deal of animadversion upon different witnesses in this case and the different claimants; which the court has striven to avoid noticing, because I assume that all the persons who have come in as claimants have come in good faith and with a desire, at least, to demonstrate the truth of their pretensions. Some of them have come, perhaps, a little in doubt, but anxious to find out where the truth lay and to be satisfied with the result even though they were unsuccessful. There is one thing in this case—the Williams case: The personality of these claimants. This man John Williams, for instance, impressed the court favorably; he told a plain, straight story, and he looked like a man who was in the habit of .telling the truth. He has not been long enough in this country to acquire any other habit, perhaps, but all of them looked like what they claimed to be, honest and intelligent men, who are habitual church-goers, and who regularly attend to what duties were enjoined upon them by their religion. It struck me that there was no affectation about them; that they were sincere and straightforward men, and imbued with a religious sense; and, as counsel for these claimants said, that accounts for what was otherwise unaccounted for. It is the only case among all the cases that so accounts for that “devotional Deism,” as it is described in that pious letter of Blythe to old Mr. Perry.
There is not a streak of religion in Mr. Blythe except that shown in the Welsh case. That accounts for the religious strain that occasionally cropped out in Thomas PI. Blythe. He got his religion from Wales, where, as Alice Edith Blythe said, he heard beautiful sermons, prayers rather, and such nice, such fine hymns, which struck him particularly because “they seemed to come from the soul.” That is the very strongest evidence. He himself said, as- is shown elsewhere
THE CHARACTER OF WILLIAM WILLIAMS, THE LIVERPOOL SOLICITOR.
Now, there was an endeavor on the part of the opposition to this claim to discredit the testimony of William Williams, the solicitor, but I do not think it was justified by the facts. He is not at all a lovable character, but in regard to this case his statements are borne out by the general force of the evidence; and John Williams, claimant, struck the key-note, as counsel suggested, of the character of William Williams, when he related the result of his interview upon' going to his office to inquire about the White street property, when William Williams said to him, “Tour uncle was a bankrupt, ran away to avoid arrest, and was a damned scamp”; and then John Williams, when he returned home, laughed and said he had paid eight and sixpence to hear his uncle called a damned scamp.
William Williams is a crabbed man, close and penurious, likely to make enemies, of unyielding disposition and naturally of a litigious disposition; but apart from that he is corroborated, and in various respects. His statement about Blythe’s being at the Washington Hotel on August 23, 1872, and that he did business with him at that time under the name of Williams, is corroborated as to the former, and is evidenced as to the latter, by the extracts from the entries in his office call-book. William Williams is evidently a very exact and methodical man, of most minute observation, and on that, very day Blythe wrote to Elliott the Washington letter. It is incredible that William Williams’ statement could be false in view of this corroborating letter, of the contents of which he knew nothing, nor of its existence. In other respects he is also corroborated, particularly as to the birthmarks on the face of Blythe. This picture of the corpse shows that. The photographer Stateler testifies that there were spots there, although not perceptible even to those who were intimate with him, because the defendant Alice Edith Blythe testified that she did not see any spots or did not observe any; and we had no evidence here except in the
THE NATIONALITY OF THOMAS H. BLYTHE.
As to the nationality of Thomas H. Blythe, it is clearly established that he was a Welshman. The testimony of Thomas Dain as to the conversation with him shows the declaration of Blythe, also Rev. Aaron Williams, the venerable pioneer clergyman. He has been here since 1849, and in his profession his reputation is high. I think that he told the
Reese Llewellyn is to a less extent in the same situation as Mr. Williams, his calling is different, but his rating as a business man is excellent, and his veracity is unquestioned. Mr. Llewellyn testified as to the Welsh dialects and the difference in the dialects. He thought that Mr. Blythe spoke the Welsh dialect of North Wales and was a North Welshman. Mr. Llewellyn came from the other section. Mr. B. W. Jones is a Welshman, and a man whose credit is not impugned; he corroborates Llewellyn.' These two gentlemen are entitled to be considered as supporting the allegation that Blythe was a native of Wales; with reference to the Rev. Aaron Williams, he did not speak to Mr. Blythe in Welsh, and said on the stand he was very sorry he had not
Sarah Roberts’ testimony as to her brother Tom’s broken leg, broken early in life, when he was six or seven years old, when he was going to the works, seems to be supported by the testimony of Alice Edith Blythe, who makes a statement about Blythe’s fractured limb. In the judgment of the court, the evidence is conclusive as to nationality.
THE LETTERS IN EVIDENCE.
As to the genuineness of these documents, the letters: These letters are established as authentic, in my opinion, apart from the evidence of the experts, Hickox, Hyde, Grant, and Schmidt. Only two of these were actual experts in the professional sense—Hickox and Hyde—and they show, so far as this class of testimony can show, that these letters were not fabricated or forged. But when we go over these letters and examine each with its concomitant circumstances (the great variety of these letters and the nature of their contents, the circumstances existing at the dates of their writing, their early production for inspection and examination, so early as May, 1833.), the theory that these letters were concocted and forged by William Williams, solicitor, cannot but be deemed as utterly improbable. The tracings of Gumpel prove, as I have already said, nothing as to the facility of fabrication that was not already known; books of biography and history are full of fac-similes made by tracing; but the task of fabricating the documents in this case is so formidable as to be simply insurmountable. As to Mr. Gumpel, I do not care to indulge in any criticism at all, but I do not regard Mr. Gumpel as an expert in the sense of detecting a false writing from a true one. He is a very clever calligrapher, but he is not a student of handwriting. This is shown in his testimony. He comes upon the witness-stand and jumps at a conclusion at once. What is the conclusion? A document is placed before him. Is that true or false ? It is false. Why ? Then he proceeds to show it. First he will say, by showing that a man wrote something like that—illustrating on the blackboard. I was not satisfied as much with his testimony as I was with other professional experts, largely, as I have
The Chicago letter, “W. W. No. 4, ” September 1, 1870, is genuine beyond any question, and this case could almost stand upon that letter, if not entirely stand upon it, and Gumpel does not testify against it. It is indisputable, al
There are no less than three important documents established beyond question in the judgment of the court: one, the Chicago letter, “Exhibit W. W. No. 4”; the envelope addressed to Mr. John. S. Williams, 19 ParTcerfield Terrace, Birkenhead, containing the letter beginning “My dear John,” written with blue ink on blue paper; and the “Dear John” blue letter envelope, postmarked “Liverpool, 20th Aug. ’70.” Compare the exemplar—the Haskell letter of date New York, July 29, ’62—with the “Paris-Wheaton letter” and the “Dear Charles” letter of August 26, 1863, and' the “Dear John letter” of London, August 26, 1863, and the characteristics are all alike, and all made by the same person, Thomas H. Blythe, as he was known here.
EXPERT EVIDENCE GENERALLY CONSIDERED.
Now, with reference to expert evidence, I desire to say nothing at all in depreciation of Mr. Gumpel, but assume that he is to the fullest extent as great an expert, as reliable a person, and as skillful an artist with the pen, as the counsel introducing him maintained, but he is only one, and there are four on the other side. Two of them are bank clerks, accustomed to inspect signatures on checks; but bank clerks or tellers, who daily look at checks, pass them principally because of their familiarity with the particular signatures which they have always before their minds, and hence they do not serve any great purpose in testifying upon signatures with which they have no real familiarity or actual daily contact. I have noticed this with reference to some of them, because I have seen them on the witness-stand affirm or deny signatures with the greatest quickness, almost equal to that of Mr. Gumpel, and yet not be correct in their conclusion. But there are two real experts as against Mr. Gumpel—two persons who are so considered in the community, and who have come into court twenty or thirty years, or more, whose opinions are contrary to that of Mr. Gumpel. As to a question of evidence, or legal value, there are two to one. The envelopes, “C. J. D. 3 and 5,” addressed “Mr. Drewe, Messrs.
This man has been traced all the way through in his writings, from the earliest letter here produced to the latest, and his identity and the authenticity of the Williams exhibits have been established beyond any possible doubt. The same