Saint Mary's beacon., 1877-03-22

oySoA op0 uoss oso VIC usOAncT iSu MN
across The ParloF, wi hen De Kissed hmm:
theG Losd A skisxed Anm; calling him
Jimmy; that be saw- th~ child repesa-
edly both before aad sfter the -sersra.
6on q his parents. and he WIS always
treated . the Iegitimste son, and once
the father sai& 'sIoa nsy b seaechsl
to the CHI. Zee - = - -
The sponsors Of the ch,ld at bsptism
we're dead. but the christening and the
attending festivities were proved re-
Pssaedly ~ sefvsnts Who { kad lived Ia
the house Over 6flyr witnesses were
called, Of every rank.-persoas preseut
at the birth, others to whom Lord A.
hao conversed repeatedly about the
child rs his son. The testimony all
harmonizes, and no effort was made to
impeach it.
A woman named Joan Laffau deposed
she entered Lord Altham's service in
IT'S, as nurse maid to the child, as
soon as he came from the wet nurse
He was then three or four months old,
and renamed in. her charge for about
eighteen months: that Althsm and his
wife always showed great fondness for
the child, and she was accustomed each
morning to carry him to their chamber.
She then detailed the quarrel which led
to o'their -.cParation, saying she sswas
present when they parted, and saw my
Lady at the door with the child in her
arms that the Iaiher snatched the child,
swearing he would not part with it upon
any condition, when my Lady burst
into tears and begged she might give
one parting kiss, to which he reluctant.
ly consented. Her story was confirmed
by another witness. The case would
thus seem to have been conclusiveiy
established. But let US turn to the 9TH
er side.
w. Pattison, who was accused by Lord
A. Of improper intimacy with his wife,
testified that one day as they were rid
ing together that gentleman informed
him he was determined to part with his
lady, as he found his brother whose
herr he was. would not be friendly while
he lived with her, and added, .!Since |
have no child by her will part with
her." Patti>on then confirms many
portions of the nurses story, but adds
that no child was present at the separa-
tion, and he never saw child in the
house. The Court here had these two
witnesses confronted. Each repeated
the story, and each was equally clear.
distinct and positive. The story of the
nurse was confirmed by another person
who witnessed the parting of the moth
er and child, while Pattison's Testimony
is substantiated by Mary Health: Lady
Altham's waiting woman. who mos,
positively swore that no such child was
ever in existence. With the exception
OF a single week this woman had at.
tended Lady Altham for the period oi
sixteen years, from her arri. al in Ire
land until her death. She had dressed
and undressed her daily, yet swore IN
the most distinct and positive manner
she never had a child! II seems
enough to destroy confidence in all hu-
man testimony to find evidence so clear
and unimpe achable on each side, to feel
on one or the other there must be de-
liberate perjury, and ye. be unable to
decide where it rests.
We have said in the beginning, the
defence made general denial: that
Lady Altham never had son, but now
the whole evidence changes IN charac.
ter.
After the separation, Lord Allhan
removed to place called Kinnas, and
there it is admitted "a child appears on
the scene. He is treated by Lord AL.
than As one Of the family and educ ated al
his expense, but it is claimed he wa,
illegitimae. During the first period
the xistence Of the child Is de.
MED: during the second 1t is admit.
ted. When Mary Health swears her
mistress never had child; y hilc Eleanor
Murphy swears both she and Health
were present at the birth. one or the
other must be perured. But We will
follow the fortune Of this boy. the pres.
ant claimant. ~
BY the influence Of his mistress, Lord
Aitham was induced to turn the boy
out on the streets, and after some ad.
ventures he was taken charge Of by an
honest butte her. named Purcell. Pur.
| cell testifies that the defendant called
to see the boy, who recognized him
as his Uncle, and EXPIRE ssed fear Of him
The Uncle said be was Lord Altman (.
son. He further testifies his Uncle
the defendant in the case, endeavored
to obtain possession Of the child, FIRST
by .tratagem and then by force. Fear.
of repetition induced the lad to leave
the butcher and take refuge with Mr..
Tigh, but the Uncle discovered his re-
treat, captured and forced him on ship
bound 10 Philadelphia, thinking no doub,
this would be the last Of him. All the
details OF the nefarious transaction are
given By the agents employed by the
Uncle on the occasion. This act would
appear 10 Us TO turn the wayering bal.
ance oil evidence sgains, Lerd Angle.
sea. Ii the boy was really illegilimate,
the proof could have been readily OBJ.
tanned. - Lady Aitham was then living.
II, on the contrary. he was the lesiti.
mate >eH of Lord Altman, We preceive
strong reasons why he should endeav.
or to remove him out OF the way.
| The case seemed 10 rest here, and
the Jury, after IN absence Of two hours,
found for the claimant. They must
therefore have considered Health, Patti.
son. and other. ., having perjured
Themselves. TIE plaiotif followed at
his vicanry. and m Indictment Sor per.
jary vss foand against Mary Health.-
The same evidence was introdaced bsi
| tbe new jury found her "not guilty
They nut therefore have coas iiere