Star.
London, England, 1819-11-05 00:00:00

SUPPOSITIOUS CHILD.

REV. IV. SEROISON V. ELIZA ANN SERGISON AND °TITERS.

This very interesting case, which was partly heard
during the last Sittings of the Court, was again brought
forward this day.
Mr. HART was about to state the motion for the
plaintiff, when
Mr. WINGFIELD, Counsel for the defendant, beg-
ged to state a preliminary objection to the evidence
on which the motion was founded. His Lordship
would recollect, that on a former occasion he had
objected to the Affidavits because they were sworn
in Ireland, without any thing on the face of them to
show that they were sworn in an English cause; and
had declared that he would not look at Affidavits in
such a cause as the present, unless the parties mak-
ing them were so pledged, as to be liable to an as-
signment of perjury, in case it should appear they
had sworn falsely. They did not, however, at pre-1
sent come up to what his Lordship wished for, for
there was not a word said as to the person before
whom they were sworn. But, supposing him to be
a Master in Chancery in Ireland, as he represented
himself to be, still the Affidavits were not such as
afforded grounds for maintaining an assignment of
perjury. He admitted that for certain purposes, such
as a proof of debt, an Affidavit sworn before a Mas-
ter in Chancery in Ireland had been admitted in for-
mer instances, although Lord Thurlow had great
doubts on the subject, and in one case declined re-
ceiving such an. Affidavit till he had consulted the
Judges on the subject. He proceeded to argue, that
there must be evidence that the person described as a
Master in Chancery in Ireland, actually filled that
situation ; and since that evidence was wanting, he
objected to the Affidavits as inadmissible. Besides,
assuming them to have been taken before a Master
in Ireland, they were not such as his Lordship had
declared they ought to be, and did not subject the
deponents to any liability, because they contained no
declaration on the part of the deponents that they
were liable to an assignment of perjury, if they had
not spoken truth.
Mr. HART said, that if this evidence was not to
be received, he regretted that his learned friend had
not risen earlier to illumine the Court.

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that if an issue was
wanted, which was all the plaintiff could obtain from
that Court, it was clear these Affidavits were not,
sufficient. The motion, however, might go on at'
present, and he should have an opportunity of talking
to the Judges on the subject on Saturday.
Mr. HART then proceeded to give an outline of
the case, and read the affidavits of the several per-
sons who stated themselves to have been accessory to
the substitution of the child as the daughter of Co-
lonel and Mrs. Sergison, and the particulars of which
will be found at length in the report to which we
have already referred. In answer to these, there
were the affidavits of Mrs. Sergison and of Mr,
Sewell, the executor of the late Colonel Sergison
The latter only said, that he had no doubt of the in..
Pant (defendant's) being the legitimate daughter of
Colonel and Mrs. Sergison, and that he had never
heard of any suspicion on the subject, till this suit
was instituted. The affidavit of Mrs. Sergison stated,
that she was married to Colonel Sergison in 1806,
and delivered of this child in 1807; that Colonel
Sergison was apprised of her pregnancy and her de-
livery; that on their arrival in England, the child
was baptised, and that there was no suspicion of any
imposition having been practised. She then pro-
ceeded to go through the affidavits of the other par-
ties, and denied the whole of their assertions relative
to the substitution. There was, however, one pas-
sage which had reference to the annuity of El - paid
to Eleanor Cunningham, which he thought it neces-
sary to read to the Court. She stated in her affida-
vit that that sum " was paid or given by her from
motives of charity, and in compliance with the par-
ticular dying request of her first husband that that
sum should be paid to her, if the deponent eve: had
it in her power to pay it; and that it was paid with
the consent of Colonel Sergison." This statement
was not unimportant, as, by comparing it with other
statements of the same Lady, it would bring her evi-
dence to the test, as far as related to this annuity.
He should now toad several letters of Mrs. Sergi
son's, addressed to Licater Cunningham, atd the

Court would judge -from them whether tle stat
ments in the affidavit, respecting the payment ( f
the 1.:12, and the consent of Colonel Sergison to that
payment, were true? The letters were then read.
They contained strict injunctions as to secrecy and
caution in the manner of receiving and conveying
letters ; they complained ef the harsh conduct of Cc-
lonel Sergison; the difficulty she had in writing with-,
out his knowledge; and that the moment she re-:
ceived a letter, she was obliged to burn it for fear of
him : several of them purported to contain quarterly
remittances of the annuity, and in one of them she
said, that in future her mother would pay the money
quarterly, as it became du?. The Learned Counsel
said, these were the affidavits and letters on which
the motion was founded, and he hoped the Court
.would see sufficient grounds in them for suspending
the payment of the £3CO a year allowed to the in-
fant defendant; or, if that, which certainly would be
a hard measure, could be avoided by a more com-
pendious proceeding, for directing an issue to be tried.

Mr. FARREN followed on the same side. lie ad-
mined that the defendants were entitled to all the,
benefit that could be derived from the suspicion with
which the Court would receive the evidence of ac-
complices ; but, at the same time, if it could be
shewn that the evidence was confirmed in some parts
(for it was impossible to confirm the evidence of ac-
complices in every part), then the whole testimony
was entitled to credit. But they were not all ac-
complices; for the person who appeared to be the,
mother of the child was an exception; and she,'
instead of deriving any benefit from the deception,
had been a severe sufferer, in being fraudulently de-
prived of her child. Ile then proceeded to shew in
what manner the evidence of the deponents for the
plaintiff was confirmed; the depositions of the one
agreeing in every circumstance of importance with
those of the other. He also contended that the de-
positions brought forward by the plaintiff were cor-
roborated by the affidavit and the letters of :11r.
Sergison ; and that her affidavit ar.d her letters con-
tradicted each other. The annuity paid to Melly
Cunningham, it was impossible to view in aily other
light than that of hush-money; for was it likely it
could be given from charity, as she represented, and
at the request of her husband, who died a bankrupt?
In her affidavit she stated it to be given with the con-
sent of Colonel Sergison, but her letters shewed the
difficulty she had in concealing it from him. He
concluded by stating, that the Rev. Mr. Sergison, in
the conduct which he was at present pursuing, was
actuated by the most honourable motives.
' Mr. WINGFIELD said, that those letters which had
been read had been engrossed since the matter was
last bt.Core the Court ; and though they had been
sworn to some time back, they had been filed only a
few days ago, and consequently could not be an-
swered. Ile, therefore, wished that •Mrs. Sergison
should have an opportunity of answering this new
matter.

The Lon, CHANCELLOR—If Mrs. Sergison has any
desire to file an Affidavit as to those letters, she must
be allowed an opportunity of doing so. There is no
doubt that Mr. Sergison is acting properly and ho-
nourably in this business, consistently with the re-
spectability of his own character, and with the duty
he owes to his family ; but, at the same time, it is
my duty to protect the child. The testimony brought
forward is certainly liable to suspicion, yet there is
no doubt that "pure evidence may be derived from
very impute sources. The child has no testimony so
material as that of her supposed mother, in the event
of whose death this evidence would perhaps be left
in a very imperfect state and therefore, if she wishes
to have an opportunity of explaining respecting the
letters, it is my duty to give it. The lady is in Eng-
land, and may in a short time give in her explana-
tion: and if that requires confirmation by application
to persons in Ireland, farther time shall be allowed
for that purpose.
After some conversation on the subject, the motion
was appointed to come on again on Saturday se'nnight.