We have all been told about the bastardy suit and have had no reason to doubt that it existed. There are few surprises. It is interesting to note that Colonel Scott did not dispute that he was Charles Manson's father. The only thing that did surprise me was the length of time that Colonel Scott was obligated to pay the child support. Manson would have been about ten and half years old when his father was no longer under a court order to pay the support.
Five dollars in 1937 is equal to $105.80 in 2024.
Here is the documentation for the bastardy suit filed by Charles Manson's mother against Colonel Scott.
It's difficult to read so the meat of the judgement has been typed out.
It is the third "In Re:" on the page.
Orders Boyd County Court
Special Term, 19th Day of April 1937
Special Term Boyd County Court Held at the Court House thereof
On the 19th Day of April, 1937
Honorable P.H. Vincent, presiding.
In Re: Commonwealth of Kentucky,
on relation Cathleen Manson Plaintiff
vs.
Colonel Scott, Defendant
Agreed Judgement
This being set for hearing by agreement of the parties on this 19th day of April, 1937, and the plaintiff being represented by David Browning, Attorney at Law and Thomas Burchett, County Attorney, and the defendant being present in person and represented by Joseph H. Spears, Attorney at Law, whereupon, came both the Commonwealth and defendant by counsel and announced to the court that the parties hereto had agreed upon a judgement, to-wit: That defendant shall pay to Cathleen Manson for the use and benefit of Charles Mille Manson the sum of $25.00, within sixty-days from this date and a further sum of $5.00 per month payable on the 5th day of each and every month for a period of eight-years beginning on the 5th day of July, 1937.
It is further agreed that the execution of bond as required by the statute be waived. Therefor, it is ordered and adjudged by the court that the defendant, Colonel Scott, is the father of Charles Mille Manson, the bastard child of Cathleen Manson, formerly Cathleen Maddox, and that he shall pay to the said Cathleen Manson the sum of $25.00 on or before sixty days from the date of this judgement, and that he shall further pay to the said Cathleen Manson the sum of $5.00 per month on the 5th day of each and every month thereafter until and for a period of eight years; the said $5.00 payments shall begin on the 5th day of July, 1937, all of which payment to the said Cathleen Manson, shall be for the use and benefit of the said Charles Mille Manson; and it shall be further ordered and adjudged by the court that the said Colonel Scott shall pay the court costs of this action.
P.H. Vincent
Judge
This is followed by a notary statement.
Good work, Deb!
ReplyDeleteSome questions:
--why did it take 2&1/2 years for Kathleen to file a paternity suit?
--what's with the paltry sums involved? $105/mo (in today's dollars) is an insult.
--did Colonel Scott actually pay these monies for the time period mandated?
I don't know why it took Kathleen 2 1/2 years to file a paternity suit. Maybe Kathleen didn't know she could file a claim against Scott. Charles's birth certificate named William Manson as his father. However, in the court documents for William's divorce from Kathleen dated July 29, 1936, which grants the divorce, it is stated that William Manson is not Charles's father. This action may have opened the door for Kathleen to file the paternity suit against Col. Scott.
ReplyDeleteChild support is usually a percentage of the payer's income factoring in the payer's expenses. I don't think that Col. Scott made much money and by the time Kathleen filed the suit Col. had a wife and child.
Katheen has said that Col. never paid the support. Who knows if she was telling the truth. She was in prison for many of the eight years he was obligated to pay.
Better than a pitcher of beer, which I hear was the going price.
ReplyDeleteamazing that they called it a bastard suit.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDelete"Katheen has said that Col. never paid the support."
Maybe because Colonel Scott was not the father? His lawyer may simply have told him to accept the judgement in lieu of it costing more to continue to fight the lawsuit.
If Scott was Charlie's real dad and the court said so, why wasn't lil' Charlie named Charles Scott?
-----
I came across some info from a Manson researcher recently who researched the Scott family in Kentucky. He implied that the Scotts were well-established and prosperous in that community, which is not the picture of Colonel that is painted. Maybe Kathleen was just latching onto whatever one of her lovers that had the deepest pockets.
Not defending Kathleen, merely Devils Advocate. Given the era and the fact that she was only 15 when pregnant, it's possible she knew he was the dad. He may have been the only man she was with. We'll never know.
ReplyDelete"He may have been the only man she was with."
ReplyDeleteBut she didn't claim that:
The Manson Women, a "Family" Portrait, by Clara Livsey MD, c.1980 pg141
...then she(Kathleen) became pregnant with Charles. She repeated that Colonel Scott was Manson's father whom he knew as his father since "Scott used to come and pick up Charles and take him home for weekends with his own child. He just loved him."
That's not a very strong endorsement of the 'Scott as father' theory, IMO.
The quote from Livsey's book is a quote taken from the only interview that Kathleen did regarding her son. I did a post on Kathleen using that LA Times interview. Kathleen whitewashed quite a bit in that interview when compared to documents and newspaper articles about the same events.
ReplyDeletehttps://www.mansonblog.com/2018/10/charles-mansons-mother.html
As far as the quote, perhaps she meant "legitimate" son. But I said, we'll never know. Unless someone uses a properly taken and stored legit DNA sample of Charlie, and then get permission from the Scott family, and pay to exhume the body of CS to compare DNA.
ReplyDeleteYou wouldn't need Charlie's DNA. The DNA of Brunner or Arguellos will suffice.
ReplyDelete@ starviego, You're right, I forgot about them. Do we know if either has interest in this subject?
ReplyDeleteNick Schreck told me that both had submitted their DNA to one of those familial DNA matching sites, but would not release the results until the current court cases re the pretender grandson have been resolved.
ReplyDeleteThis is very interesting Deb. I am amazed at how you continue to come up with this stuff!
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete
ReplyDeleteLast night, I dreamed I was visiting someone who lived in an old house. When I looked out of a window and there looking back at me stood Lynette Fromme. She had left by the time I got outside.