The Dorset County Express and Agricultural Gazette.
Dorchester, Dorset, England, 1860-10-23 00:00:00

LONDON POLICE.

CUSIOUV CASE OF BASTAILDT.

THAMES.—Henry Everted, a builder, contractor. and
briekmaker in Poplar,appeared to answer to an adjourned
warrant taken out against I by a young woman,
named Susan Beer, of Beaumont-row, White Horse-lane,
Stepney.
Mr. Metcalfe, barrister, instructed by Mr. C. Young,
solicitor, defended Mr. Everard.
The facts of the case was of a very extraordinary de-
scription. On the 16th of October, 1857, an order was
made upon the defend int by Mr. Yardley, at this court,
to pay 2s. lkl. per week fur the demon uf a male child,
of which the complainant, Susan Beer, swore he was
the father. The defendant continued the weekly pay-
ments regularly until the end a May cif the preamityear,
when lie received Morin...thin that the child had died,
and he refused to pay any more money to the complain-
out, Susan Beer, the mother of the child. The defen-
dant was summoned for the arrears due, amounting to
Cl Os. Gd. ii, the latter part of J•ily, and not being able
to prove the child was dead, and the mother having
sworn that it was alive. he was ordered to ley the
amount, and thd W. Subsequently another summons
was taken out against him for &Mar. a iiiii tinting to 15a.,
which lie was also ordered to pay. On his refusal to do
so • warrant was applied for, on which he was brought
before Mr. Selfe on Tuesday, the 9th inst., and the
complainast again swore the child she had affiliated on
the defend...it was alive, and produced one which she
said Was Everard's child, and that it was four years of
age. The child did not appear to be more than two
ye int Old, and the defendant alleged it was not the one
Abbate.' upon him, and was the offspring of the com-
plainant's *igen The complainant had on a previous
oemoon sworn, in her croas-examination by Mr. Young,
that the child had been at Portsmouth since it was four
months old, but refused to state with whom, anti that
aim went down to Portsmouth to bring it up to London,
and paid 2s. 6d. for the return ticket to Portsmouth.
Al the last hearing, in consequence of the solemn as-
severations of the defendant that the child produced
win, not his, and not the one affiliated upon him, Mr.
Selfe consented to adjourn the case, and directed the
complainant's sister, a Mrs. Truaeott, of ,48, revision.
street, East India-road, to produce her child at the next
hearing of the case, which she promised to do, and
claimed costs. Mr. Selfe oniered a guinea to be paid
to Mr. &miller, the clerk, as costs, and laid it should
he banded to the complainant if she proved to his satis-
faction, on the final hearing of the case. that the child
Was alive, slid that she had practised no deception.
On Wednesday, Mr. Joseph Smith, solicitor, paid his
client, Susan Seer, did not appear, and there was an
end of the ease.

Mr. Selfe.—Why does she not appear?
Mr. Sinith.—Because she has no opportunity of
obtsining the second child.
Mr. SeUe.—Then I • ill never grant process against
the defendant again, unless the complainant produces
her own child and her sister's child.
Mr. Metcalfe mid he had numerous witnesses to prove
the bsstard child of the complainant, of which Mr.
Everard was adjudged to be the putative father, was
dead ; that it died of ascites after scarlatina, on the
13th of February. 1859, and that it was buried in Bow
Cemetery. The defendant, owing to the false repre-
sentations of the complainant and others, had been
paying 2s. 6.1. per weet for the child 16 mouths longer
than he ought to have dune, and had been harassed a d
annoyed most fearfully. The child produce,' on •
former examination was the son of Mrs. Truseott, the
complainant's sister.
Mr. Sinitli.-1 deny it.
Mr. Metcalfe maid lie was stating facts. A fall oppor-
tunity had been off, red for the iroduction of the child.
costs bad been deposited in court, and it was not forth.
coming.
Mr. Selfe said there wax no good reason for believing
the child was alive after the mother and her witnesses

bad so strangely disappeared from the court, and he
should riot give credence to any statement from a soli-
citor, however respectable he was, that the child was
living, unlesa that statement tubs made upon oath.
Mr. Smith.—No doubt • child is dead.
Mr. Metcalfe.—Yes, the child—the child that wan
affiliated on my client. I now apply for • summon.
apinst Susan Beer for obtaining money under false
pretences.
Mr. Sulk thought there would be difficulties in the
way of prosecuting the woman for obtaining money
under false pretences. It would be • perjury on the
art of Susan Beer if she said that the child was living
after it was dead. She had set certain machinery in
motion to induce Wm to order the y to be pail.
Mr. Metcalfe.—l have 11 witnesses here to prove a
conspiracy and perjury, and that tow child died in
February, 1859.
After some further conversation the learned counsel
applied fur and obtained • SUMMOMI against SIMI]
Beer for coniulitting wilful and corrupt perjury, and
the guinea deposited by Mr. Ererard was returned to