The New Orleans daily Democrat. [volume] (New Orleans, La.) 1877-1880, 1878-06-16

with only comparatively small provision for
| wife and child. He assigned as q reason that
| he did not believe the child was his, but the
son OF doctor at Nice, DR.. Crosbie; that he
married the lady ''for protection" He utterly
| denied that a false" marriage ever took
place. He must have meant a registry mar
| rage In this denial, for no trace OF its record
could be found, although sworn to by the lady
both sides, The only marriage appears to
have been the one of August s, 1875. By the
conditions OF the will William Hugh Neville
Bagot could never protest, because Ii he dis
puted the will he was to lose his share of the
property. Therefore his mother battled for
him. The testimony OF her struggle will be
found in the pages of almost every prominent
English journal OF the day.
lhe case has been remarkable In many
points: First and foremost as exposing the
Shiny depths OF London high life; secondly,
for the number and variety of witnesses ex-
amined: and thirdly, the amount of forensic
Talent displayed in the conduct of the case.
Mr.. MacdonOgh' opened for the defendants.
Inc mantle OF poor Armstrong seems to have
1allen on the able counsel-such powers of
abuse does he possess. He handled Mrs.
Bagot without gloTes-such portrait did he
Pelnt OF this lady-so convincing proofs did
ne bring to bear on his statements that, after
his speech, she seemed to have no hope Of
success. Then the Solicitor General took
up her battered reputation and
s sbaffdred f two Gays to patch It's
s1A1bGtClCA Tag ln6LLSs IdlhOl 80 we'll, 100, III
so pathetic strain, Of Mrs. Bagot's wifely
devotion, in SO indignant tone of her hus-
bands brutality, with such enthusiasm of her
motherly courage in facing the public to
maintain her golden-haired baby boys rights
that in the end he succeeded in convincing
every one--the lady herself included-that
she was altogether in the right, a loyal,
abused, noble, much-enduring woman. In ac-.
cOmDlishing this he did not disdain to use
small circumstances. He spoke of the wife
sitting on the arm of her husbands chair, call
ing him dear "Nevie," etc.
The most telling evidence on both sides
was given by servants-the lady's maid and
the gentlemans valet the walters at the
hotel, and there were thirty-fve witnesses
examined for the defendants. Eleven of
these, on oath, were contradcted point blank
by Mrs. BagOt. Yet she acknowledged Tin an
emergency" she would "lie." Seventeen ply
sicians gave evidence for and against the
physical capacity of @. N. Bagot to be the
parent Of the child, William Hugh Neville |
Bagot. The doctorsionly differed. Their tes-
timony proved nothing.
Mr.. Porter conclusfvely proved that she |
perjured herself, yet the judges charge to the |
jury was, to any unpreiudiced mind, nothing |
more than an able and eloquent plea for the |
lady, forcible indeed, but decidedly one
sided.
The jury, contrary to expectation, gave
VERDICT In FAVOR OF MRS. BAGoT,
on the ground OF an insane delusion on the |
part Of her husband. When it was pro- |
nounced she entered her carriage and was
driven OF amid uproarious applause from |
crowd wrought up alike by her grace and |