The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1860-12-15

lnere were also entries showing the receipt OF the
bills Of exchange which the letters enclosed
Passing TO the year 1928, when the petitioner
became acquainted with his position, the learned
October, made out by William Patrick and purportng
10 be catalogue of the papers sent by him 70 the
the l2th OF November These papers were returned in
few days. and the 3ls OF December the petitioners
request Mr. Patrick again him the letter Of the 18th
OF november, and an obituary; and he acknowledged
their receipt He read extracts from Mr. Sheidens let
ters from October 1923, to January, 1924 in which he
sad that ne knew that there had been suit between
himself and the Paricks before he left school that
aware that Dr. Hosack was then living and that in
papers accompanying It," These letters of great
length one OF them extending no less than thirty
one pages The letter of the Sd Of January 1924
knowledgng the receipt OF the obituary and OF letter
containing perhaps the last signature of his father
showed that the petitioner had obtained possession OF
what he regarded valuable relic and to for
its production he told the incredible tale that he had
exchanged II for some unmportant letter OF 1888
The correspondence of 1S41 proved that the petit
toner's explanation idle and untrue, and that the
original letter of November l79S had been traced TO his
possession This evidence entirely acquitted Mr. Patrick,
most honorable OF the shocking charge OF having
frabcated letter Just as unfounded were the charges
brought against the other members of the family of
having fabricated accounts and destroyed papers with
the view of getting rid OF their liabilities the estate of
William Shedden. II was clear that at the time Of his
death he was deeply indebted, and his estate was hardly
solvent In addition 10 the evidence he had already
stated TO habit and rcpute he should prove that in
June 1897 conveyance executed of certain parcels
of land New York to Ann Wilson, that this land
settled TO her separate upon her marriage with Vim
cent in January, 1899 and that she conveyed II away in
1901 The learned counsel then proceeded to comment
upon the evil dence given at New York support Of the
petition.
The Court adjourned before the observations upon this
part Of the concluded.
There are no pecuniary interests directly affected by
this suit though there IS, we believe about ESQ 600 in
directly involved
Miss Shedden who has personally, when counsel re-
tired from the conduct Of the case advocated the rights
Of legitimacy Of her father in the proceedings before
the Court Of Probatc-receved letter from Miss Burdett
sfycQ III her lady
position and congratuatng her the zeal she has dis
played, through hal piey by advocating the rights Of
her father prisoner in the Queens PRISON. To establish
his legitimacy the representative Of his
America, who she insisted had not lost his rights as
check for 600 for Miss Sheddens use during the pro
proceedings
JUDGMENT AGAINST MISS sHEDDEN.
From the London Chronicle Nov 2S
Mr.. Collier, @ c., having concluded his reply, the
Court after Few minutes adjournment, proceeded at
to pronounce sentence upon the questions which had
been submitted 10 1t.
The Judge Ordinary said they had now arrived at the
last stage Of this very singular inquiry, an inquiry tho
length and compexy Of which had caused the Court
feel in very considerable degree the responsibility that
rested upon them. There were two or three circum-
stances, however which somewhat diminished that feel
ing In the first place the evidence had been given
somewhat slowly and so much immaterial matter had
been mixed up with what was material that they had
had abundant time 10 consider the weight that should be
assigned TO the latter Another circumstance that might
have embarrassed them the fact that the female
petitioner had been left for a considerable time
duct the without the Of COUNSEL but the
intimate knowledge which she had displayed with every
fact material or mmater connected with the history
OF her family and the singular tact and dextery which
she had shown in the management Of her case entirely
relieved the Court from apprehension that
Besides, portion of the evidence had been given, and
the whole had been very ably commented upon by
perenced counsel lastly, the Court felt that the
dence but il was one upon Which they had all been ena.
bled To come TO most clear and unhesatng judgment.
The question was simply this: Had marriage in fact
been soemnize whether with or wthot religious rites
between the father and the mother Of the elder petitioner
before he bornY During fourteen days the Court
had had discharge the functions Of ryInen they
could not content themselves with giving like urymen
simple verdict OF aye nohey felt bound TO state the
from which they drew the conclusions % which
they had come. The facts on which the case turned
not The evidence given by the petitioners
Of the alleged marriage confined 10 what called
habit and repute but they said that al this distance OF
time would not be reasonable to expect them to supply
better testimony s the fact Now the FIRST question that
suggested ITSELF IN dealing with the case was why should
the marriage have been secret ones The only reason
they had now attempted to suggest was that Mr. Wilson,
the father Of the bride objected 70 the match because the
difference between her age and the age Of Mr. Sheidan
too great; and then II said that Immediately
after this secret marriage the parties cohlbted togethe
and wife, down 10 the death Of the petitioner
father; that in the meantime everybody knew OF IT, and
that Mrs sheden visited and visited BY the adie
Of New York. But what a strange reason 70 give TO
keeping a marriage secret II Mr. Wilson objected
his daughter being married % Mr. Shodien because h
too old would he be reconclei 10 the idea OF he
cOhabiiing with him without being married. so far
as be knew, at alR But, again, was thus The reason
the petitioner had always givenf In 1888 he was in
treaty With Mr Patrick for the purchase d The Rough
wood estate aud letter 81 the 14h OF June he wrote,
Though am unable % establish my right just yet
what known on the subject would not be IN your favor
conceive II my duty to inform you that sister told mo
that my mother a respectable young person, living
with her parents small farm on my fathers estate
and that ne did No, publicly ackuow her on account
her humble birth but that he nevertheless treated her
as his wife, II that was what became OF the reason
alleged for the secrosy Of the ma'chy This by the
way ne letter o. man who stated that TIL ls4s or
1s49 he had had the slightest ntimaton that
marriage had taken place until the ceremony which VIA
performed on his father death bed But THIS Wa not
all. He went 70 say Moreover my sister told me
in 1879, when she mentioned this circumstance TO me-
that woman was stii living who was present at
the private marriage After these two opposite reasons
assigned for the secret marriage, what confidence
could be felt In the evidence Of habit and reputc 7
Against that evidence there tho testimony OF Mr.
Nelson who declared that Mr. shedden always passed
for single man, and who OF much greater age than
those witnesses who had been examined on the other
side There was likewise the evidence OF John Barr I,
which, Barr had not perjured himself, was exceedingly
strong If the case had stopped here he lthe learned
Judge) might perhaps, have felt some embarrassment
though he believed he should then have held that
the petitioners had not adduccd sufficient Affirmative evil
hsa ssn place preyo 70 os
70 the death bed marriage on the 9Th q November IN
step II could not the hypothesis Of the petitioners
have been taken In order 20 make rcparation for any
wrong done to ammo Wilson neither could u have
been prompted by religious scruplc as 20 the law
funess Of matrimonial cohabtation without the sane
ton OF the church. because Mr. sedden well know that
hs cohabation with the mother Of the petitioner would
never again be resumed What other was thereS
II was suggested the deceased might have thought
that second marriage might have been easier Of proof
than the first But that could hardly be All New York,
II said knew OF the first marriage and Mrs Sheddcn
visited and visited by the families Of Dr. Boswell,
Mrs. Rankin, Mr. Hamilton, Judge Pendeton, and tho
other persons Of repute OF whose the petit
toners boosted The deceased might, moreover, have
made a declaration which would have been conclusive.
The only other motive or the marriage the idea that
II would legitimate the children whom the parties had
had out Of wedlock and that, 50 long as y suited
hs case, the reason assigned by the petitioner
himself lie had been continually pressing upon his
uncle the fact that his father had always intended
him 70 have the Roughwood property, and that he
(Mr. Patrick had basely awaited himself a tech.
meal objection defeat the intention Of the deceascas
IL had been suggested indeed that Mr. sheldon had by
been led 10 suspect that there would be
conspiracy 10 deny his former marriage; and that 70
make he had the marriage resolemnzed with ecces
astica forms u there really had been such design,
who could have been parties 10 the conspiracy Clearly
one but Mr. John Patrick in New York and Mr. vii.
liam Mr.. Robert Patrick In scotland. But II pos
sble 90 conceive Mr. shcdden had any such idea that
he would have appointed the fraudulent nephew In New
York his executor, and the fraudulent nephew In En.
burg the guardian OF his infant SOM The notion too
absurd He (sr CresswelD came 10 the letter OF
November ~, 11es, which u was admitted would Il genu