The Sun.
London, England, 1849-01-26 00:00:00

WILLIAM LITTLE, DECEASED.

The testator died on the 30th of May, 1845, leaving a
will and codicils. The will was written on three sheets
of paper, and each sheet was signed. The property was
between 9,0001. and 10,0001 The seal was placed to the
signature on only one sheet; and a question arose
hether the other two sheets had not hien changed.

The Letancd JUDGE thought the will and codleils
were original papers, and granted the probate.

SARAH ANN TUCKER, DECEASED.

The tetatrix made a will in her own handwriting,
and signed it without any attestation. On the 15th of
June, she having some workmen employed about her
house, and having been informed that it was necessary
'or her to have two witnesses, called two of them into
her kitchen and re-executed it, pointing out to them the
previous signature, which she acknowledged.
The Learned JUDGE granted probate to the executrix,
Sophia Tucker.

MIDDLESEX SESSIONS.
(Before the ASSISTANT-JUDGE.)
CHARLES COLIN BLANE V. A CONVICTION OF P.
BINGHAM, ESQ.—This was an appeal by Col. Charles
Colin Blane, against a conviction of, the above named
police magistrate, adjudging him to be the putative fa-
ther of an illegitimate child.
Mr. PARRY, in support of the conviction, said that the
respondent, arbe Sophia Mertz, was a young French-
woman, who had been in the millinery establishment of
Madame Davies, in Grosvenor-street, and the appellant,
Colonel Blane, was a military man, of ripened years and
considerably older than the respondent. She first be-
came acquainted with the colonel by meeting him in the
streets, in 1845, and without going into detail of the as-
signations made and kept by the respondent, he (the
counsel) would at once say that this intimacy resulted
in the birth of a male child in the month of April, 1848,
at a town near Lisle; in France, and this child was the
subject of the present inquiry.
The Learned ASSISTANT-JUDGE said that a very nice
question of law arose as to the putative father's liability,
from the fact of the appellant being an Englishman and
the child having been born in a foreign country.
Mr. BALLANTINE (who, with Mr. Maynard, appeared
for the appellant) said that would be the point upon
which the case mainly rested.
Mr. PARRY then called the respondent.
Barbe Sophie Mertz, a very neatly-attired and pretty
young woman, with a chili in her arms, stepped into the
witness-box, and deposed as follows :—The child was
born in France, at therhouse of Victoire Danny, near
Lisle, in the month of April, last year. Colonel Blane
was the father of that child. She had lived in England
twelve or thirteen years. Her mother lived at No. 14,
Suffolk-street, but she (witness) lived at Madame
Davies'e, in Grosvenor-street, Bond-street. She first
knew Colonel Blane in 1845. He lived at No. 16, in
the same street, facing Madame Davies's, and he could
easily see her as she in went and out of the house. He
first accosted her in the street, at Madame Davies's
door, and subsequently he used to speak to her
whenever they ,met. About eight months afterwards
she used to call upon him at his chambers, usually on a
Sunday evening, and she remained with him alone three,
four, and five hours at a time. She was confined on the
4th of April, and she returned to England on the 21st
or 22d of the same month, leaving the child in the care
of a wet mine. Before she went to France, she applied
to the colonel for assistance, but he refused to render
her any. She had received a great many letters from
him, and those produced were .the same; they were in
his handwriting. She did not mention to him the fact
of her pregnancy till two months and fourteen days be-
fore she was confined. When she returned to England,
she waited upon the colonel, in company with her
cousin, Ferdinand Muller, and told him, in her cousin's
presence, that she bad been delivered of a child, and
that he (the colonel) was the father of it. The colonel
asked Mr. Muller to retire, which he did, and then the
colonel told her that it was much more likely that her
cousin was the father of it. She then called her cousin
back, and repeated what the colonel had said, when her
cousin, of course, denied the charge. Colonel Blane
had seen her at Jullien's concerts, with her cousin, F.
Muller, on the 15th October, 1847. Muller did not
arrive in England until July, 1847. She challenged the
colonel to deny that he had received her in his rooms
for three or four years, but be did not deny it. He hau
asked her how much money would set her up in business
as a milliner; he also asked her what money she had,
she replied enough for the present; he said that he
would not forgive her for letting her family know what
had occurred.
A number of letters were here put in, to show that
the appellant was in corr. spondence with the respondent
during the years 1846, 1847, and 1848. They contained
very warm expressions of affection, and generally com-
menced with " Ma there Sophie—Ma tres there Sophie."
They were written in English and French, and each bore
the signature of " Charles."
In cross-examination the witness stated that she first
went into the colonel's rooms in 1846, but nothing im-
proper took place between them until fifteen months
before the birth of the child; she never sat on the sofa
in the sitting-room. The colonel was always very kind
and attentive to her, and used to read and amuse her by
telling stories. He was twice her own age. Muller was
her junior by a few years. She first told the colonel that
she was in the family way in January, 1848, and after
that he refused to see her upon any terms. Whilst she
was in France Colonel Blanc wrote some insulting letters
to her. Muller did not support herself and the child,
but be gave her a little money on her return from France.
She and her cousin Muller forced their way into the
colonel's presence, because the porter refused to admit
them. Muller pushed the man aside and went up to the
colonel's room. She went to Jullien's became Colonel
Blane gave her a private box on purpose, as he had
heard her speak of Muller, and he wanted to see him.
The colonel was on the promenade; she took Muller on
purpose for the colonel to see him. She denied that she
went to the Princess's Theatre with Muller. She was
not aware of the amount which was demanded of the
colonel as expenses; it was, she thought, above 100 L, but
not 180/.
John Cottrell, the porter, proved that he had ad-
mitted Miss Mertz frequently to the colonel's chambers,
and that on these occasions she remained with him for
some time.
The Learned ASSISTANT•JUDGE said that he saw in
one of the letters this passage, " I send you two tickets
for Saturday night, of which I trust, my dear Sophie,
you will be able to make use." What did this refer to?—
Miss Mertz replied that they were tickets fur Covent-
garden Theatre, which was just then opened as an
Opera-house.
Mr. Muller, who said that he was a commercial man in
Mincing-lane, was called, and he corroborated that part
of the evidence of Miss Mertz which referred to him.
Miss Sophie Lambert was examined in French by Mr.
Parry, and she stated that before Miss liertz went to
France she was reported to have been enceinte. Miss
Mertz went to Madame Lubret, a sister of witness, who
resides at Lisle.
Thomas Davies, a porter at the Senior United Ser-
_vice Club, proved the appellant's handwriting in the
letters produced.
Mr. BALLANTINE, in behalf of the appellant, sub-
mitted that the Court hid no jurisdiction to deal with
the case, and in doing so he was aware that he also
questioned the jurisdiction of the magistrate who made
the order. The child was born in a foreign country,
in France, and that child was unquestionably a French
subject.
The ASSISTANT-JUDGE said it seemed to him that the
jurisdiction attached at, the time of the ay plication to
the Court below—the jurisdiction was clear—but if the
jurisdiction attached at the time of birth, the main point
as to the jurisdiction of the Court would be dubious.