Vol. VIII] IN MEMORIAM: THEODORE HENRY HI! TELL 9 



Wiehe, of Goedens, in the northeast corner of Germany. Dr. 

 Wiehe was chief surgeon on the staff of Field Marshal 

 Bliicher, and was present at the battle of Waterloo. The 

 daughter left Germany on account of the events of 1848, and 

 came to California on a sailing vessel by way of Cape Horn. 

 It is said that she trimmed and introduced the first Christ- 

 mas tree in San Francisco. After her marriage, she took 

 much interest in Science, and with Mrs. Brandegee and Miss 

 Rita Haggan was among the first women members of the 

 California Academy of Sciences. She was one of the found- 

 ers of the San Francisco Foundling Asylum. She also 

 founded the Silk Culture Society of California. She actively 

 urged the establishment of manual training schools. She was 

 one of the pioneers in advocating the organizing of a museum 

 in San Francisco. She was interested in the preservation of 

 the Indian picture writings found in California, and wrote 

 an article on the subject for "Science" magazine. Her last 

 published article was on Pasteur, in "Science." She died 

 in 1900. 



Mr. and Mrs. Hittell had four children, of whom three 

 are now living: Catherine Hermanna, Charles Jacob and 

 Franklin Theodore. They were all born at the old home at 

 726 Folsom street, in this city. 



It was in a great measure due to the solicitations of his 

 wife that Mr. Hittell decided to re-enter the practice of the 

 law. In 1861 he joined the San Francisco bar, and in 1862 

 he formed a partnership with Elisha Cook that lasted for 

 five years. He devoted himself to civil law, and only once in 

 his legal career tried a criminal case. Upon one occasion he 

 was asked by John B. Felton to prepare a brief, and the doc- 

 ument was so clear and cogent that Mr. Felton immediately 

 offered him a partnership, which was promptly accepted. 

 This partnership lasted until Mr, Felton's death in 1877. 



John B. Felton was one of the ablest lawyers in the history 

 of the State. He was a type of that period, one might say 

 almost a product of his day and of San Francisco in the six- 

 ties. He collected vast amounts in fees, but spent his income 

 with princely lavishness. He had astonishing ingenuity in 

 applying the principles of law, and great quickness and exact- 

 ness of observation. His brilliancy at the bar, prodigality of 



