Year: 1879

For the past two days Mr.. Isaac Butt, q. c., has
occupied the time of the High Court of Appeal in
the Bagot case The Lord Chancellor. Master of the
Rolls the Lord Chief Baron and Lord Justice Deasy
were on the bench. In opening his argument Mr..
Butt said it at last became his duty to say few
words to the Court for Mrs Bagot. There could be
no difficulty in understanding what he had to argue;
1T was whether he could sustain the verdict the
| question of the sanity of the testator whether
| 1t could be impeached. He not called upon to
argue the question of undue influence. and
the only question to be determined one of
sanity. He would endeavor to confne himself
strictly to the question their lordshps had deter
mine He did not think sufficient attention had
been drawn to episode in the case and he should
refer to that first he did not think the learned
Judge had treated the matter with sufficient gravity.
| He meant the suppresson-for he should charac-
terize it wilful and designed suppression-of
some of the most important documents in the case
just until the close of the plaintiffs He was
the last person living to press hardly upon the
way in which case had been conducted. but he
must say that what took place i'll this demanded
alttle more comment than had been given to it. He
believed that the suppression of the documents. five
in number. the most important in the case, must
have influenced very greatly the jury. They gave to
these documents meaning and significance deeper
than they would have had without that suppression
and he intended to show that that suppression ought
to have the effect on their lordships minds and
also that it impossible to discuss fully the evil
dence in the without bringing in the aid of the
suppression of those documents.


| The Lord Chancellor-To what will do those in
structons to which you alluding refer?


Mr.. Butt-To the very last will. The we are
| now disputing-the original one that formally and
] technically is at issue here.


| he Tor Chanc ro
all as to the nature of that document 1t has on the
very face Of the statement OF its characterhat it
| is instructions for will.


that he did not wish to make this question of law
1t had the face of it the very terms in which Mr.
| Bagot swearing. Why, man might just as well
come up in this court and say that he did not see
their lordships sitting on the Bench-that man
speaking say, .sOh, counsel advised ME; ne ought to
swear it. "a augh That would be excuse.
| The Lord Chancellor-Is Mr.. Bernard Bagot bar
rister?


Mr.. Butt-Yes. my lord. Oh, he has walked the
"IIall" for many day: l don't know whether he
least he COUNSELLOR Mr.. Bowler. Iaughter.)
don't know whether it is the same Mr.. Bowler
Ibelieve it is the did think the world could
have produced second Bowler. Renewed laughter.)
The learned counsel then read the list Of the docu
ments that he contended had been to some extent
kept back in the conduct of the defendants case.
Why did they suppress them? Because they knew
their terrible effect and that nothing could explain
the reason for their suppression. That suppression
showed the consciousness of Bernard William BaSot
and the other parties that those appeared
damnng in their minds. because they knew the cir
cumstances under which they had been framed. and
this will was founded on fraud.


WERNER.


He would next come to the general outline of the
case and ask their lordshps to look to the circum-
| Bagot of Miss Werner and her brother who to a
certain extent were involved. Mr. Bagot met his
| the most odious prohgscy. He was a prohigate
Of the. deepest dye, with immense sup


e' at dinner When she was not sr
years of age. He believed that then Mr.. Bagot
formed the deliberate design Of seducing her. There
evidence of profligacy her part except the
rawlings OF this man. He submitted that he carried
out his design by sham marriage and he would
show by evidence that it impossible to deal
with the any other supposition than that.
| Who was Miss Werner? 1t would be idle for him,
her counsel, to say that she had the advantage Of
careful and thoughtful mother or the inestmabe
advantage OF belonging to q well regulated house
hold or well brought up. She was left to herself
and those the two that brought in con-
tact. Mr.. Bagot commenced by making presents
family. and she and her brother and sister went
to him repeatedly at the Alexandra Hotel.


little nsfore the Franbfort aa pus%sss awssenea
great deal of the skeleton Of the house would never
have been unveiled. These were the two the Court
had to deal with-a girl evidently wild the did not
mean it in improper sense). but if they chose,


asand it not all fast girls that the easiest
prey of seducer-a man double her age and evil
IDENTIFY having designs against her. What made him
give her valuable presents Immediately after pecon-
ing acquainted with her? She should not have ac-
cepted them


HE ACKNOWLEDGES THE CHILD


Her mother was certainly not careful guardian.
She stated positively that he possessed an affection
for her and that she ut first refused to marry him.
and that she would when he got better. Her mother
them there. What made him go there ii he had not
design? He took the young lady to Frank
Sas srs asy @ 5 It s sn
her mother, who demonstrated strongly with
him. After referring to the evidence of the sth
August, counsel contendcd first, that the child was
Neville Bagots: second that up the of March
the evidence was overwhelming. with two ex-
ceptions, that he acknowledged 1t his and that
believed II to be hiss that he left London on the
I4th under the belief that the child was his and
that on the 10th, when he had gone to Chester
when there opportunity of his mind
being poisoned by Bernard Bagot by lies, he
told Mr.. Fry, whom he had never seen before that
the child the son OF the German doctor Nice.
He (Nr. BUTT perfectly agreed with the Judge that
the testators mind was disposed to deusions. The
first evidence as to the acknowledgment of the child
that of Dr. Marsack. and then that of Miss Werner
and Hannah Goulding aud from their evidence no
father could have manifested his rejoicing at the
birth of an heir more than he did when the birth of
the child was reported to him. He wrote down to
his wife & after & the event. my darling vii hope you
rejoicing at the birth OF an heir


IMPORTANT POINTS


Lord Chancellor think you right in dwelling
this point of the case because this question OF
paternity is a question of enormous Importance
whether there il a new trial or not There NAV be a
new trial totally different grounds from this and
therefore 1t is right that this particular question
which lies at the root of the whole case not on this
issue only but every issue. should be accurately
examined by you. and that whatever evidence there
is upon it should be brought before us.


Mr.. Butt then referred to the evidence of Mr.
Bagot. after he went to Aughrane crying out while
in bed. and attended by nurse. "oh, my childl my
child! my boyl my boyi what have done?' Tie
defendants wanted to hold that these occasions
the tcstator under the influence of drink or
drunk. He thought IL was stronger evidence than
that of public acknowledgment In the. species
of deusion which they thought seized Mr.. Bagot's
mind in the journey between Dublin and Holy head
IL not in the least inconsistent that when he
went down to Aughrane and quietly began to reflect
on the whole thing the deluson was passing from
his mind and he began to think of what he had done
There some trace os that turning in his mind
when he sent the TO counsel to know could his
will be set aside ON the ground of dclusion. Ii he
was perfectly settled in his mind that the child was
not his. when he drank champagne, 10 was ex-
ceedingly improbable that his first impulse would
be to reveso all his thoughts. There was