The evening telegraph. [volume] (Philadelphia [Pa.]) 1864-1918, 1864-12-03

10 kIiINeu n U.hNL ana NO.tNel ''IlnNlf.a
The knife must have lc.n sharpen, u tur the deed,
at least, NJ other reason was mentioned. Whe-
ther Gruthc had already selected 5T,gy iOr VIC
tim it is impossible 10 say with certainty. But
that murder 70 be committed m ease 1f resist
ance was, on GrOthc's part, pramcdtatcd is be-
yCnd a doubt. The iury returned the verdict
gviRyt That widow GJiUch' anil Marie Fischer
had heC1 made acquainted With iho plan formed
by GrOthe or killing Grccy j. NOT probable;
ncyerthc css, they were gully 1i having sisLcd
Gro'hC ia the performance Ui tina act Of musler.
Moreover, il has not been proved that their par
tiyipltiOn was not an esSCIt ll one. Ihe sentence
OF death was Pronounced upon all the three
prisOn,rs.
ATogu. Ginby case 80 English Jgi-l, life
Mrs. HurdcII Gutd"ur.
From N, / IlfoH Tin4as, " Q IaHs. H.
A case re- smbling in many respects the famous
Douglas case of the last century wa, yesterday
decided in the Rolls Court, after an investigation
occupying Judge and jury for three successive
days. } was not indeed, question of the dcyo-
luton of an estate Large enough to be styled
principality, nor did the contest, like its great
forermncr, involve the purity Of blood OF family
which had more than once usurped kingly power
and kiuply functions, if not kingly name; but the
fact TO be determined WAS OF the same kind, agd
the contradiction OF probabilities was almost MS
embarrassing A child, which had for years been
accepted as the issue of q Lincolnshire gentleman
ana bis Wlte, was declared 70 nave no claim 10 the
title. The case presented to the court was that the
supposed mother, who has been dead for seven
years, had deceived her husband and her
family 10y imposing upon them child which was
not her own; but, unable to carry her secret TO
the grave, she had confessed the fraud to two or
three persons, one of whom was her father. The
family of the wife had direct pCcuniary interest
in negatiYing the legitimacy Of the child, and the
natural improbabty of u deceit, which 1t was
confessed would have been completely successful
but for the weakness of the wife was increased
by the years which they had allowed 10 elapse
since her death without taking any measures tO
obtain judicial exposure of the fraud. The Cvi-
dcnce brought forward was, however, so strong
that the jury found il impossible to arrive at any
other conclusion than that the child was suppOsi-
titiOus.
II seems that in May, 1851, n Mr.. Gcdncy, Of
Caudlgsby Han, in Lincolnshire was married 80
a Miss Smith, Of The same county, but up to
Fthruafy, 1854, there had been no issue Of the
marriage. Miscarriage had indeed happened two
or three times, and in September, 1888, the lady
had told her husband aud friends that she was
again pregnant. In February, 1851, she was in
III health, and went alone to London b. consult
physician, taking lodgings in Park street, GrOs-
vcnOr square, but she had only been In the me-
tropolis two or three days when she wrote TO her
husband announcing that she had been preml-
tuIely confined. He hurried up to town by the
next train, when his wife presented him with
little fair haired girl rs their daughter. A day
or two afterwards a cousin Of his wife, who was
chemist and druggist, warned him that a Mr..
Goss, the person attending his wife, was q very
improper character TO have about her, whcr3upon
Mr.. GOss was Immediately dismissed, and Or.
Fare was callcdin. DIR. Fare, relying mainly,
il would seem, upon his memoranda. declared nc
the ira that nc had no doubt but that the lady
had been confined, and the child appeared %
have been born only n few days when nc was
summoned, and he treated the case without any
suspicion of fraud There was no suggestion
that the husband had no this time or I'LL long
after any reason TO doubt that the child was his
4 L. in Flt 1H I'll. .rlr a
that The mother, when living, had always treated
the baby with mOther!y kindness. The mother
on her recovery was chufchCd 90 the nearest
ChWCL, and her brother was one of the sponsors
al the Christening of the child. So far it must
be confessed that the case for the legitimacy of
the child was sufficiently strong. On the
other hand, il VAS clearly proved that the
husband and wife did not live happily
together, and, indeed, he had been Hlilty Of CON
duct towards hCr which comes under the legal
definition OF cruelty. In the ill-tcC.ing between
the husband and the wife, the family Of the latter
discovered the motive for her fraud A desire
10 win back an alieuGted husband d was, IL would
ECem from the evidence Of one o.. her friends, the
reason which prompted her 20 carry ont design
which was So nearly successful. She was, how
ever, evidently q weak, impnlsiYe woman, and
the statements She made, even i'm confession,
DO not seem consistent with Themselves and
are certainly not altogether consistent with the
truth. She tOlu her cousin, clergyman that she
had been confined ia -Orlory, 1891, OF e'lll-
ling TO supply the place of the dead-boru infant.
The lady 's-mIid 70 whom she confessed the deceit
said nothing Of any dead.1rthi and medical
man, who examined her body after death, declared
she had never been cOu4ued az all. Dc. Fare was
nositiye thgt she must have been cOuiinDd two or
three days before he wa called in. The further
evidence Of the deceit made it unnecessary to
decide the point, Tie and'ady ut the lodging
house i'm Park street assisted in putting Mrs.
Gcduey TO bed on the night VI the alleged cOu-
fuemCut, and observed no signs Of pregnancy
GOss and his wife arrived little later, the latter
C0uCcaiug a bundle under her cloak, aud after
| three or four hours, during which there was no
noise or symptom OF excitement IN the sick room
| the landlady was called in, was told that MIS-
! GeGuey had LCeu confined, ana a little female
| infant was produced which looked as If i- hll
| been horn a week. The monthly nurse, who va
/ summoned the same night, dtpO5e1 that Sue saw
! enough TO be satisfied tll. the baby was u)
| newly hOru. Ia fact the caid " is born On th3
! 4th ut February. On that day a single woman
! pam,i Lucy Fletcher, wa confined IN tle l0rS
! tOad Lyiug-in Hospital Of a daughter, which sl,
! parted with few days afIer 70 a gentleman VII.
| promised that il should be adopted By lady
| Ihis child was a little fair blue-eyei girl. Sht
| had never seen the baby or the gentleman
| since, and was apparently ignorant even Of his
! name but nurse IN the same hospital, who wa
! a party 20 the transaction, knew him as DR.
! GOss, and identified him with a DR.. GOS3 nov
| living in PimlicO. who was identified as the DR.
| GOss who attended Mrs, Gedney in Park street
This Identification was, perhaps, the weakest par
of the case, and neither side called the very irro
gular practitioner himself to prove or disproVe hi
participation in the fraud but the Jury wer,
satisfied of his identity, and the case was theI
practically complete, The confessions of the lady
herself. made in One instance, at least, when in
very by sterical condition, might be open TO sus
| picion, but the evidence Of the landlady and th
nurse in Park street excluded the possibility Of
| regular accouchement, coupled with the Retua
sale of an infant few hours before the supposet
event, TO a man who, with his wife, were the sol
witnesses Of the alleged birth, precluded al
doubt and the jury, therefore, arrived at th
conclusion that the little girl who has hithert
passed as Miss Gedney MAS in reality the chil'
Of Lucy Fletcher