Wallace's Case.

six acres of land to the wife of Joseph Bonser, and, at that time, being asked if he had a wife, said that he had never had a wife. And, in 1888, he complained to William R. Hilton that a woman was troubling him, and added, that he had never been married.

Passing from this question as to verbal admissions, there remains for consideration the conduct of Josiah, which is claimed to have been tantamount to implied admission of the legitimacy. of the caveator's claim.

First is the circumstance that Alphonso frequently visited him and was not repulsed. The evidence is, that he came once or twice each year, between the close of the war and his death in 1876, but that, while he had no hesitation in announcing himself as the son of Josiah, Josiah always interviewed him in private, and never alluded to his visit or acknowledged him as his son. Usually, at these visits, Josiah would walk away from the house with Alphonso and speedily bring the interview to an end. The anxiety to get Alphonso away from the house was so marked upon one occasion that, although the weather was inclement and' Josiah was then an old man, he did not stop to put on his coat before taking Alphonso out.

Another circumstance is, that Josiah received the visit of Alphonso's wife, when she came to him with Jane Polis, about 1869 or 1870, and then took from her a picture of her son, the caveator, and examined the certificate of her marriage to Alphonso. And another circumstance urged is, that about a year before he died he received a visit from the caveator and his mother, at which he was told that he was the caveator's grandfather, and made no protest; and as well, also, the circumstancethat he frequently had other private interviews with O'Neil's mother, at his woods in Palmyra.

It also appears that memoranda were found among his papers in which he makes mention of Alphonso. Those memoranda are as follows:

On the back of a bank deposit slip he wrote with pencil, evidently some time in or after the year 1870, the following:

In his diary of 1862 he wrote, under date of March 26th, "Al-so;" in his diary of 1870, under date of June 15th, the word "Alphonso,” and in his diary for the year 1885 the following:

And on a blank leaf in a book which belonged to him, he

Wallace's Case.

1836, 5, 26 Alfo born.

year mo. day

1876 5 26

1836 5 26

79 40

45 74

4 34 is difference."

And in another book:

"Alphonso came May 26th, 1836."

William F. Morgan, with whom Josiah lived for the last eighteen years of his life, testifies that he frequently saw Josiah write upon a slate, on which he was accustomed to figure, as though he were making a list of contemplated beneficiaries, and that among the names he wrote was "Alphonso Wallace," to which he invariably added "$10,000." The wife of this witness remembers Josiah's writing on the slate, but her remembrance is that, when he wrote the name of Alphonso, he wrote "Alphonso W." and not Alphonso Wallace.

The testimony of William F. Morgan is somewhat affected by his relation to this case. He was appointed by the orphans court one of the administrators of the estate, and lost that position through the appeal of Mrs. Rudderow and others; and it was after that that he first testified to this remembrance. It is charged, and the course of proofs indicates quite plainly, that he is zealous in behalf of the caveator.

It is observable throughout the memoranda, to which I have made reference, that Josiah never gave Alphonso a surname. On the back of the deposit slip he wrote nineteen names, giving every one a surname except that of Alphonso. In the other memoranda he refers to Alphonso as "A. W.," "Alphonso," "Alfo," and, according to Mrs. Morgan's remembrance, he gave only the initial of the surname in the slate writing that she saw. Thus it appears that in every unquestioned writing he concealed the surname. It is also to be noted that "W" would indicate Weaver as well as it would Wallace.

Wallace's Case.

This branch of the proofs makes it irresistibly clear to my mind that there was a recognized bond of some kind between Josiah and Alphonso, and, at the same time, the memoranda, in which the date of Alphonso's birth is subtracted from various other dates, and the age of Alphonso is subtracted from Josiah's own age, intimates that interest, and, it may be, paternal affection, entered into that bond. But, at the same time, the proofs establish with equal clearness that, whatever the bond was, Josiah was ashamed of it. His secret meetings with Alphonso and Alphonso's wife, and the suppression of Alphonso's surname, and his continued failure to declare the relation which existed between him and Alphonso, and even to refer to Alphonso when conversing with the family in which he resided, although he knew that their curiosity must have been excited by Alphonso's appearance, afford ample proof of this.

Now, what was the bond? Was it that of lawful paternity? I think not. In addition to his failure to acknowledge such bond, his intended legacy to Alphonso is most significant. Out of an estate of nearly half a million of dollars that legacy was never allowed to rise above $10,000. I cannot conceive that a father would thus provide for his only lawful son. It will not do to urge that he may have feared his family, for it must be remembered that he was providing a gift to take effect after his death, when he would be beyond the reach of family clamor and reproach; besides, his invariable apportionment of the same sum to Alphonso, whenever he is mentioned in the memoranda, through a series of years, puts it beyond question that he always considered his apportionment to be the proper and just limit of his bounty. Such stability of purpose excludes the possibility that the quantum of the legacy was the product of fear, for, if fear existed, the amount would vary with the courage of the moment of each writing.

But it is also significant, in this connection, that Alphonso was not always mentioned in the memoranda. Indeed, drafts of three wills were found among Josiah's papers, all written by his own hand, one of them dated in 1837, and the other two dated in

Wallace's Case.

1842, and in no one of them was reference made either to Alphonso or to his mother.

Upon a careful review of all the evidence offered I have come to the conclusion that it fails to establish a marriage between Josiah Wallace and Elizabeth D. Weaver. I believe that the letter which was folded with the release of 1836 truly discloses the relation that existed between Josiah and Elizabeth. I have referred to the proof that, in 1847 and 1848, Josiah was engaged to marry an estimable woman who died. The proofs also disclose that, shortly after the death of that woman, an anonymous letter reached her mother apprising her that Josiah was the father of a child, and leading her to question him about that fact. Now, I think, when the letter, enclosed with the release, is read in the light of this fact, a credible explanation of most of it is had, truly exhibiting the exact relation between Josiah and Elizabeth. It is noted that it is addressed to "Miss E. D.W.," the initials of Elizabeth D. Weaver; that it accuses her of writing to others than himself, and in some way reflecting upon "the one" for whom he "cherished a sentiment of more than mere friendship" and whowas then "no more;" that it alludes to a threatened visit from Elizabeth; that he challenged her to do her worst; that he upbraided her for a desire to publish that she was the mother of an illegitimate child, and that he spoke of that child as a boy able to carry handbills through the markets of Philadelphia. If it was written in 1848, upon the provocation which the anonymous letter evoked, there was then a writing to others than himself; there had then been one for whom he cherished a sentiment of more than mere friendship who was dead, and there was a boy twelve years of age who could publish his mother's shame in the

markets.

But a moment's consideration of each portion of the proofs. exhibits the complete natural and easy accord of the portion considered with meretricious relationship and the existence of its illegitimate fruit. This accord is too apt and conspicuous to be disregarded or mistaken, even under the influence of the inference and presumptions which the law favors in behalf of morality and decency.