The Elk County advocate. [volume] (Ridgway, Pa.) 1868-1883, 1874-07-02


he was confronted with many who knew
Isaac, and knew him Intimately. One
hundred and thirteen swore positively
that he (plaintlff) was he. The court,
by majority, decided in his favor, and
the people who had espoused his cause
greeted the decision with loud cheers.
Having thus obtained possession of
the estates, he might have retained
them undisturbed, had not his ambition
carried him so far as to marry a young
lady of good family, who was relation
of one of the Judges on his first trial.
This step raised storm about his ears
from most undesirable quarter. And
here q new actor appears on the scene.
In the story he told of his adventures
when he first appeared there was one
remarkable incident. He appeared as
Pierre Mege, soldier, and said that
some years before he had visited the
wife of the genuine Pierre Mege, and
represented himself as her husband,
who had disappeared some time before
that she knew he was not her husband,
but, rather than remain q grass-widow
any longer, she was willing that he
should pass as such. Extraordinary
though the story was, the fact that his
wife remained quiet during the first
trial encouraged the belief that his
statements were true.
Now, however, that he had married
another, the offended wife rose in
wrath and denounced him as the real
Pierre Mege, a soldier, a convict,
and galley-slave. A new trial was had,
and the customary conflict of evidence of
identity was again witnessed. Nearly 400
witnesses were examined. One hun
dred and ten, (including twelve old and
constant comrades, twenty-one domes-
tics in the service of the De Caille family,
and four nurses, who, at different times,
had had charge of him. swore that he
was Isaac. One hundred and eighty
two Gncluding his father, his sister,
and the undertaken who had buried
him) swore as positively that he was
not Isaac. One hundred and thirty
swore that he was IN reality Pierre
Mege, while the evidence of his irate
wife conclusively showed that he was
an impostor.
In the course of the trial allusion was
made to q still more remarkable i'm
posture. 1t had been urged on behalf
of the claimant that he must be young
De Caille, or lie would not have dared
to set up his claim during the life of his
father, and while an infnity of living
witnesses could prove it false. To this
M. De Bliniere in reply, gave an ac-
count of an adventures, who in 1923,
went to Limoges and entered q nun.
merry, passing herself off as Henrietta
Maria, sister of Louis XIII. and wife of
Charles l., of England. The people in
the vicinity were entirely deceived.
Louis Kill, then at the siege of La
Rochelle, sent commission to examine
her. She conducted herself with the
greatest efrontery. related the history
of the English court gave the names
of the principal lords and ladies who
waited on her, and stated that she fed
from England because she was perse-
cuted for her religion. Everything was
connected in her.answers, she maintain
ed that she was the kings sister, end
signed her examination " Henrietta De
Bourbon" AS the real queen was at
that very time on the throne of Eng
land, visible every day at the English
court, the imposture was of course ex-
posed, but many thought it could not
be an imposture, for the very reason
that it was so palpable cheat.
Recent events in England have pro-
duced several brochures on this subject
OF mistaken identity from prominent
members of the bar. The strictneSs Of
tteEoglish law with regard to contempt
OF court has prevented their publication
till the conclusion of the Tichborne
case, and the accumulations of some two
years are now at once made public. 1t
is subject which certainly deserves
careful attention, for, like insanity, it
is perplexing question for the jury
man. No system perhaps is superior to
the one now in use of procuring all the
evidence attainable and subjecting it to
a searching analysis, but an improve
ment might be made in the canons,
which govern in weighing evidence of
this nature, at least so far as il relates
to marks and personal resemblances.
A suggestion by Mr.. Joseph Brown, Q.
c., that evidence should always be pre-
sented to the jury of causes celebres of
a similar character, while perhaps i'm
practicable from its making the pro-
ceedings too volumnious, would no
doubt have good effect.
The case of Ada Ricard, alluded to
above, is briefly this A body was
found in 1861, floating in the river near
a Jersy City pier. 1t was supposed it
might be the corpse of a notorious
woman, one Ada Ricard, who had dis
appeared some time before. Her puta-
tive husband and others identified the
body to the perfect satisfaction of the
authorities, not only by the facial re-
semblance, but also by the following
marks, which Ada had, and which were
all found on the corpse: l. A habit of
wearing very heavy earrings had slit the
lobe of one ear, and they had both been
pierced higher up. 2. She had pecu-
liar cicatrix in a lower limb. 3. She
habitualIy wore stockings two sizes too
large for her feet. 4. She had beau.
tiful and regular set of teeth, with the
exception of one lower tooth, which
was absent. The corpse had lost two
lower teeth, but a closer examination
showed that one had been knocked out
in the course of the death struggle, and
was still adhering to the gum. No
sooner, however, had the police salts
fed themselves as to the identity of the
corpse than Ada herself made hear ap-
pearance, having wandered off to New
Orleans for a few months. Renewed
efforts having been made to ascertain
the identity of the murdered girl, a
woman from one of the Eastern States
next claimed the body as her daugh-
ter's, and identified it by the very
marks which had led the detectives to
suppose it was Ada Ricard. By this
time, however, she learned that her
daughter was sick at Bellevue Hospital.