The Express.
London, England, 1864-11-11 00:00:00

BRITANNIA-

Twat EVENDIO. TIIE MoTHEITS DYING CHILD. Ilre. S.
Lame. Singing by IL. Albert Steele and Duati.—Aud
CAPTAIN JOHN LUCK.—Comatettee at be.

HIGII WATER AT LONDOS:RR/DGR.

Tors DAT Monunft. 116. tOm . Afternoon—, Oh. Om.
itoksQw sforutug. Oh. Inta....Atternoon, Oh. 41m.

LONDON, FRIDAY, NOVEMBER 11.

A .se bearing in many points a resemblance
to the celebrated " DOUOLAS cause," which
agitated and divided society in the days of our
great grandfathers, has occupied the Court of the
MASTER of the Rotas for some days past. The
stake at issue in the present instance was, it is
true, not the descent of an ancient Dukedom, but
at least to the person principally interested it was
of scarcely less importance, for it was the differ.
eneebetween recognition as a member of a family
in good position and of comfortable means, and
being branded as the bastard child of a pauper
mother and a nameless father. The jury at the
Rolls has, however, come to a decision less conso-
nant with the natural inclination of the mind in
such cases than that at which the House of Peers
finally arrived in reference to the Duke of
Doro...is's succession. It has disregarded the
sympathy which must be inevitably felt for one
who, if there has been a fraud, has been the most
innocent, while doomed to bear the heaviest pe-
nalty, and has pronounced that a child brought up
for ten years as the sole offspring of its presumed
parents was, in point of fact, imposed upon the
husband by • deception of which his own dead
wife was the deliberate author and agent. We
shall briefly trace the evidence by which this con-
clusion was forced upon the jury.
_ .

In 1851 a Mr. and Mrs. GEDNEY, the alleged
parents of the child in question, were married. ,
The union was unhappy, the husband being
admittedly of loose habits, which operated with ,
serious, and ultimately fatal, effect upon his
wife's health. Till 1854 they were childless. In
the beginning of February in that year Mrs.
°EDNEY came up to lodgings in London. There
seems to be difficulty in fixing the exact day. I
According to Mr. °EDNEY'S evidence it was on the
ith or Bth. According to the evidence of a cousin
of Mrs. °EDNEY'S it was on the 6th. Two days
after her arrival she called in a Dr. Goes, and on
the second or third day of his visits he came accom-
panied by his wife, who carried a bundle under
her cloak, and after they had been for some hours
in the room the landlady was called in and told
that Mrs. GEINEY had been delivered of -a female
child, which was shown to her, while the room
presented appearances consistent with that state-
ment. Next day Mr. °EDNEY was sent for, and
he came up to town. He was dissatisfied with Dr.
Goss,dismissed him, and called in Dr. Fain; now
one of the Royal physicians. This gentleman visited
Mrs. °EDNEY every day for some days, and at
longer intervals for a fortnight. He deposed that
he never had any doubt that Mrs. Gtoxer had
been delivered of the child he saw, though he had
made no minute examination, as the case appeared
to progress favourably. But as Mrs. GEDNXV was
unable to suckle the child, and wet nursea had to
be procured, it is difficult to see how Dr. FA/ME
could have escaped observing symptoms which
must have indicated conclusively whether a child
had been born or not. On the other hand, Dr.
GRANTHAM, the family physician in the country,
deposed that he could come to no satisfactory con-
clusion as to whether she bad been previously in
the family way or not, and from an examination
after death he was inclined to say, though not
positively, that she could not have bad a child.
Several of the servants who were in the habit of
waiting on Mrs. °EDNEY declared that they
had seen no symptoms of previous preg-
nancy ; the landlady of her London
didgitigs was of the same opinion. Yet again, a
cousin of h••r husband declared that she knew of
her being in the family way iu the previous au-
tumn. 11'h:1•• the evidence was greatly at vari-
ance with regard to the supposed mother, it was
scarcely wore clear w ith regard to the presumed
child. It was proved that an unmarried girl of the
name of LYDIA FUJI-111,kt had a female child in
the York-road Lvisig-in Hospital on the 4th Feb-
ruary, rhi, child was a few days after taken
away by a e,utleman and lady, who said they
wanted a b thy, with blue eyes and fair hair, for a
lady to adopt who was childless ; promised her
that it should lie brought up as a lady, and that
she should Fe•• it every three months. But she
never sue it nor did it appear that she
could identify the gentleman and lady who took
away her infant, though she had been taken to see
Dr. and Mi,. t:oss fur that purpose. Bat Mrs.
it..I:LRTN, a DDESO :At the hospital, had a better
memory for f .ees, a:.d deposed positively that Dr.
and Mrs. Go-, were the parties who took the
child, thiiii.:li renvonbered nothing else that
w..a said or done oti the occasion. The landlady
at Mrs. i:ri.vi:v% lodgings and one of the nurses
also deposed that the child she was said to