New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1857-08-06

80 surprising in escaping the meshes of the law,
that there seems to be in some quarters DISPOSE
ton to Get her down as having charmed life, and
as sure to get through any kind of legal scoop net
within which she may seem for the moment TO be
envelOped.
Doubts are already suggested in some of the jour.
nails whether, after all her plotting and planning,
and all the acts and facts fully established against
her she has done anything to bring her within the
notice of the law; whether in fact the District
Attorney has not cut short her operations 80 pre-
maturely as to prevent her coming within the Oper
alton of the statute for such cases made and pro-
yided.
That statute is in the following terms:
every person who shall fraudulently produce an in
FAINT falsely pretending To have been born OF parents
whose child would be entitled to share of any per-
sona estate TO inherit any real estate, with the in
tent of interceptng the inheritance of any such real
estate the distribution Of any such personal prop
erty from any person lawfully entitled thereto, shall,
upon conviction, be punished by imprisonment In q
State prison not exceeding ten years"
1t is suggested that the word "prOduce," used
in this statute, may be held perhaps to mean some
formal and technical production in Court, or other
wise in the character of heir that to bring the
case within the statute, some claim should have
been put forward in the name Of the suppOsittiOus
infant to the property of Dr. Burde, and that this
not having been done, the ofeDse is not yet perpe
trated. 1t is plain, however, upon moments
consideration, that it is impossible to give any such
restricted Interpretation to the word "prOducs"
used in the statute. The production from
which mischief and loss Of property to the true
owners might arise, is not merely production in
the character of claimant. The right Of child of
DIR. Burdells, born in lawful marriage to succeed 10
the Doctors property does not depend at all upon
any formal claim put forth on behalf of iuch child
Ii depends solely and exclusively on the existence
of ,uch child, and the bare setting up the fact of
to intercept the inheritance is the very fraud which
the statute intends to prevent and to punish. That
Mrs. Cunningham did set up fraudulenty the fact
Of the existence Of such child, that she did fraud.
ulenly produce to several persons All infant falsely
pretending that it was the issue of marriage be-
tween her and DR.. Burdell, with the intent by that
means to intercept the inheritance of the Doctors
property, would seem to be abund antly established
by the evidence, and if so, the Gaze against Mrs.
Cunningham would appear to be complete.
1t is objected, however, by some still more re-
iDed legal casuists, that until the reality of the dis
puted marriage between Mrs. Cunningham and DR..
Burdel bad first been established by the Surrogate,
Mrs. Cunningham was not in position to be guilty
Of the ofense Of attempting to pass off supposi.
titioua child 40 the heir Of DIR. Burdell. These
directors insist that by the words of the statute it
is essential to the crime that the child fraudu.
lently produced should be produced "as the child
"of parents whore child would be entitled to in
hertz and they cay that, till the fact of
marriage is established, the legitimacy of the child
-supposng it to have been real one and of course
10 be entitled to share of any estate Of DR..
Burdelrs-remsns an undecided question. The
personatiou, they say, does not fall within the terms
of the statute, which calls for the persoDaton of an
infant born of pareuts whose chl'd Tond be entitled
to inherit; whereas, the most that can be said Of