Dayton daily empire. [volume] (Dayton [Ohio]) 1850-1865, 1864-12-10
A Bogus Baby case In Eng iish
Hign s4ife--Mrs. Burdeli Out
dame

Hign GIfe-- MRS. BurdsIi out
d0ne.
lFJom Tie London Lines, Noy.n.l
a cRse resembling ~ many respects the fs.
nous Douglas case Of tho last century, was
7 Yesterday decided ia the Rolls Court, after an
i investigation occupying Judge and jury for
/ three snceessiye days Ii was not, indeed O
question Ol The deyOlution of an estate Iarge
enorgli 10 BE styled principally, nor did ha
contest, lie rs great torsruner, invo,ve the
I purity blond o! a family WHICH hsd more
Than once u7urped kinsly power apd kingy
iunct 0Hs ,fn1t kingly name bat the fact to
be detrtmib ID was The same kind. aud The
contradiction OF probabilities was almost as
EN- barrassiDg a child, which had jor Years
been accepted ss The issue OF Inoolnshire
gentlemen end his wife, vas declared 90 have
20 claim to the title, The case presented to
the court was that the supposed mother, who
has been dead tor seven years, had deceived
her huabrnd and her family by imposing upon
them child NOT her own hut unable to
I carry her secret to the grave, she hsd CON
tessedthe fraud to two or three persons, cue
OF whom was her father. The family Of the
wife had y direct pecunisry interest N mega
tiyiug the legitimacy olthe child, and the rat.
ural limprobabity Of deceit whish /, was
confessed would have been completely sue.
cessul bnt for tue weakness tihe wife, was
, increased by he yeats which they had allow.
ed to eiapse since her death with taking any
measurs to obtain Judicial exposure OF the
fraud The evidence brought forward was
however so strong that the jury found it i'm
possible to arrive at any other Conclusio
than that the child was suppoSitious
1t seems that in May 1851, Mr.. Geduey-
OF Candlesby Hail, in lincoshirs, was mar
ried to a Miss. Smith, OF the same county
but up 10 February, 1854, there had been n !,
issues ot the marriage Miscarrihges hau
surely happened two or three times, and |"
! September, 1853, the lady had told her hua.
band and friends that she was again pregnant.
| In February, 1854 she was in III health, and
went alone TO London TO consulta physician
taking lodging IN Park street, Grosvenor
/ Square, but she had only been in the metrep.
| oils TWO or ibree days when she wrote to her
husband announcing that she had been pre-
maiursy confined. He hurried up to town
/ by the next train, when his wife presented
him with little iairhsired girl as their
dau hicr, A day or two afterwards d cousin of
! bis wife, who was chemist aud druggist
warned him that Il Mr.. Goss, the person a.
| tending his wife, was Il very improper char
acter TO have about her, whereupOn Mr.. t4ross
] r.
was called in. DR.. Fare, relying mainly Il
would seem upon his memoranda, declared
at the trial that he had no douot but that 5as
lady had been confined, and the child zap.
peared 70 be ony lev days olnwhea be
was summoned, and ne treated the case With
out any suspicion of fraud There was no
suggestion that the husband had at this time,
| or till long after, any reason to doubt that
the child was his own; and . female cousin
! of the lady declared that the mother when
living, had always treated the baby with moth.
ery Kindness. The mother on her rec overv
was churched at the nearest church, aud her
brother was one OF the sponsors at the chris
tening OF the child So Gar, il must be con
fessed that the case Ger the hgitcmy Of the
child was sufficiently strong On The other
hand it was clearly proved that the husband
and wife did not live happily together, and
indeed be had been guilty Of conduct toward
her, which comes under the legel definition
OF cruelty. In the ill-ieeling between the
husband and the wife the family of Lhe latter
discovered the motive for her fraud. de-
sire to win back an alienated husband was, it
would seem from the evidence of one of her
friends, the reason which prompls her to
carry out design which was 80 ne arly sue.
cessiul She was, however, evidently, o weak
hputslft NuuhHi hHu huo bthteA0tOU sne
made even in confession, do not seem consis.
tent with themselves, and not certa inly alto.
gether consistent with the trnth, She told
ber cousin, clergyman. hat sht, had been
confined in February, 1854, Of "a shll-born
child, and she had lhereupon got change
ling to supply the place of the desd-born in.
FAINT The lHdys maid to whom she confess.
ed the detet said nothing of any dead.brlh
and q M sdiral man, who examined her body
after dsatA declared she had never been con
fined at all DR., Fare was positive that she
must have been confined two or three days
before be was called in The further evidences
OF the deceit mado IL unnecessary, to decide
the point The landady of the lodging house
in Park street assisted in pat,ing Mrs Ged
ney to he'd on the night of her
alleged confinement, aud observed
no signs of pregnancy; Goss and bis wife ar
rived little later, tho latter eoneealipg a
bundle under her clohk, aud after three or
four hourH do ing which there was no noise
or symptom Of excitement in tbs sek room,
the lhndlady was called ia was told hat Mrs.
Gedney bad been confined, and little female
infant was produced, which looked as if it
had been born a week The monthly nurse
who was summoned the same night depossh
that she saw enough 70 be Satisfied that the
baby was not newly born In fact, the child
Was born on the 4ih OF February On that
day single woman named Lucy Fletcher
was confined in the York Road Lying,in Hos.
| pitAl of daughter, which she parted with q
1 few dava iaftar IN \ Oanflenaan she ,Asou.;a.l