The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1884-11-22 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY ACTION ABOUT A
LADY'S AGE.

In the Court of Appeal on Tuesday, before Lords
Justices Baggallay, Bowen, and Fry, the appeal of
Woods v. Stretton was heard. It was heard together
with two other appeals referring to the same matter,
and arose out of a most singular dispute as to the true
age of a young lady, alleged to be the illegitimate
daughter of a deceased county court judge. The
exceptional nature of the dispute will be seen from
the following statement of the evidence, by which it
appears that the question was in fact one between the
young lady herself and her mother as to whether the
former was born on Christmas Day, 1862, or upon
the same day in the following year. For the purpose
of deciding the appeals, which related to the guardian-
ship and custody of the young lady, and the payment
out of court of a sum of £l6OO, which had been
settled upon her by her alleged father, it was neces-
sary in each case to ascertain whether she had or not
attained her age of 21 years, and by the direction of
their lordships the arguments of counsel were confined
to that point. On the part of the mother it was con-
tended that the young lady was born on Dec.2s, 1863,
and was still a minor; the young lady, on the
other band, and her guardian contended that she
was born on December 25, 1862 and had conse-
quently attained her majority, and Vice-Chancellor
Bacon had held that the latter was the true view of
the case. The mother's evidence consisted of affida-
vits by herself and others to the following effect: She
swore that she had had two female children—a fair
child named Hannah, who was born in 1862, and died
in France at the age of five or six years, and a dark
child named Ada, who was born in December, 1863,
and was the young lady in question. In an earlier
affidavit she had sworn that she had only had one
child, which was born in 1862, and was also the young
lady named Ada, but "after refreshing her memory
b.y reference to memoranda and making inquiries of
friends," she corrected her original statement. A.
baptismal certificate was produced, from which it ap-
peared that Ada was baptised in March, 1864. The
husband of a Mrs. Jones, the midwife who attended
her, deposed that he well remembered his wife being
hurriedly called away on Christmas-day, 1863, while
preparing the Christmas dinner, to attend the lady;
that his wife, now aged and infirm, told him that
same day that a girl had been born, and that when
himself employed about that time at the lady's house
in plumbing work he often saw "the new baby."
There was some further slight evidence of friends to
the effect that the lady had two children, but in spite
of a search at the proper district registry no entry of
any birth at the house where the lady lived could be
discovered. The daughter and her guardian relied
upon the mother's first affidavit, and upon the fact
that in the books of the surgeon who attended the
mother the only entry as to any confinement was to
the following effect "Midwifery entry; square.
Living female child; natural labour; born o'clock
evening, 25th December, 1862. Mrs. Jones, nurse
present, and Mrs. Pugh, the daughter.' It further
appeared that the mother was advised to bring an
action for breach of promise of marriage against the
alleged father of Ada, which was ultimately referred to
Lord Justice Lush and Mr. O'Malley as arbitrators,
and that in preparing the proof of her evidence for
that case the mother referred in terms to the birth of
one child only, and the arbitrators made their award
upon that footing. Lord Justice Baggallay, in deliver-
ing judgment, said that at first sight the circumstances
of the appeals appeared to be very complicated, but
after hearing all the evidence that could be adduced,
the court could only arrive at one conclusion, and
that was that the young lady had attained 21 years
last Christmas Day, and was no longer their ward.
It might be thought that too much time had been
devoted to the case and too great indulgence per-
mitted in the admission of evidence, but while it was
to bo regretted that it had been ov, the patience of
the court must be attributed to its anxiety to consult
the best interests of a possible ward of court. With-
out commenting upon the exceptional nature of the
evidence offered by the mother, it was enough t,o say
that he was entirely satisfied that the Vice-Chan-
cellor's decision upon the question of birth was
correct, and since the appeals all turned upon that
point, they must be dismissed with costs. The other
Lords Justices concurred. Mr. Cookson, Q.C., and
Mr. R. Vaughan Williams were for the mother; Mr.
Crossley, Q.C., Mr. Farwell, and Mr. Macaskie were
for the respondents.

I to be