The Stourbridge Observer, Cradley Heath, Halesowen & District Chronicle.
Stourbridge, West Midlands, England, 1868-04-25 00:00:00

THE LATE TOM SAYERS'S
PROPERTY.

Monday, in the Rolls' Court, before the Master of
the Rolls, was specially appointed for the hearing of
the cage in relation to the children of Tom Sayers—
whether the children, four in number, born after the
marriage with the present Mrs. Sayers were entitled
to the property left by Sayers, and which was claimed
on behalf of his two " illegitimate children "by the
panic woman.

It appears that after the fight between Heenan
and Sayers a sum of about £3,000 was subscribed for
the benefit of the latter, and settled to Sayers for life,
then to his children, and, failing children, as he (Savers)
should by deed or word appoint. Sayers died in ISO,
and by his will appointed the fund to the benefit of
two illegitimate children, named Sarah and Thomas,
the will stating that he left no legitimate issue. Three
children, however, claiming to be the legitimate issue
of Tom Sayers by Sarah, his wife, and named respect-
ively James A ldridge Sayers, Alfred Aldridge Sayers,
and Charles Aldridge Sayers, obtained leave to attend
the proceedings and prove their right to the fund, to
the exclusion of the two illegitimate children named
by Tom Sayers in his will. The claim of the Aldridge
Sayers was resisted on the ground that they were not
Tom Sayers's children at all, either legitimate or ille-
gitimate, but the children of a man named Aldridge,
with whom Mrs. Toni Sayers was alleged to have been
unduly familiar after her separation from Tom Sayers.
This, of course, raised the whole question as to the
completeness of the separation between Sayers and his
wife during the time within which the parentage of
these children could be spread over, and the question
Of such fact was directed tube tried by oral evidence
before the Master of the Rolls, as to whether there was
or were any and what child or children of '1 homas
Sayers, in the decree in this case mentioned, living at
the date of indenture of June, 1861, or born afterwards,
and when inch ohild or children, if any, was or were
InsPeCtiffelY born, awl whgtbor any or vrbilk of glom

has or have since died, and when. It should be men-
tioned that the two illegitimate children named by
Sayers in his will were children born to him by the
mother of the Aldridge Sayers claimants (adore he
(Tom Sayers)married her ;the whole )4 the claimants,
therefore, both legitimate and illegitimate, being chil-
dren of one mother. The evidence adduced, which
was principally that of women, was too low and nasty
to fo,t forth in detaiL .

—.-
Ills Lordship, aft. r having listentvi with every at-
tention to the evidt nee adduced before him, held that
it Wad ineutlicient to satisfy the court that the separa-
tion between Tom Sayers and Sarah his wife had been
so complete as to preclude his beieg held the father of
the threcAllsi4ge Sayers—James, All lid, and Charles
--and that tliMse three children must beiseldentitled to
take the fond in ime.tion under the trust and provi-
sions of the deed of June, ISgit, in favour of the chit.
then of Tom Sayers.
The effect of this decision is, that the two illegitimate
children ore ex bah a from the settlement, but m ill
take the pi rsonalty, and three out of the four born
after the marriage will take the £3,000 under the
settlement.