Skip to main content
Hide Articles List

15 articles on this Page



THE BABY WINS. j I N I JUDGE'S DECISION IN SLINGSBY j SUIT. Judgment- was delivered in the r<tmantT;&!n!gshy c:t;-ein which litt're Iteidy Slingsby, or to give him his full j j»«ie, Charke Eugeo« Kdvard Slingsby, j ?)Md through hi-s guardIan ?or deeh\r- atior, at; the Probate Court that be is tiae legitimate .on ot Mr. Charges Henry Rev-j ■sard SJingscfv, of Scriven Park, iork-! shire, and as such the Lawful heir to the estates- The case oceapicd public attention that was not focussari OIL the war for many! day, and the e^idf-nce was remarkable. To-day 4r. Justice B3rgnj.,r-e .lX>aJlc gave judgment in favour or Teddy. This is a declaration that Teddy is the lawful son aitd heir. Teddy vcas entered as petitioner appear- j ing by his guardian Mr. C. H. R. Slinge- j by, who married Mrs. Dorothy Morgan .Warner, a widow, in and they sought a declaration that the child was I tire issue of their marriage, and was borE at Nu1 Francisco in 11110. Two brothers or Mr. Slingsby. the parties cited in the! Miit—Messrs. Thomas William Slingsby) a ad Alau Peter Slingsby-all",g",d that th I child was not the eon. of Mr. Charles'. Slingsby and his wife. but was the ille- j intimate child of Lilian Anderson anci Pa n ¡ Cohin" and was adopted by Mrs.. Dorothy Slingsby. His Lordship, in giving hio decision, *aid the evidence in the case consisted largely of evidence taken on commission. That was a.n unsatisfactory way oi deal- ing with a serious question. Touching upon the history of the case, his Lordship said be dd not know how inquiries in America were initiated. The i family seemed to have made up their minds from the first that the true state of affairs was not put forward by Mr. j Charles Slingsby, and. according to Mr-ii. Slingsby. detectives were employed be- fore idle left San Francisco after the dat«\ o; the-birth or the child. They were ;ip- I e. ]Mirently employed almost before tll-e < hirth or the cnild. Information as to the expected birth of the child had reached England some time before tfce child was born. Mrs. Slingsby had given evidence before him. lie wao an excitable woman, and ex- presc.ed herself very strongly when th j legitimacy of the chikJ was questioned, lie was not sure that her outburst was not honest. The strongest matter urged against her and risc, to the' whok -proceedings, was that she wrote j out si! advertisement for a newspajwr raying she wanted to adopt a newly-born j hoy, and caused it to ue inserted in the aan Francisco I She denied on oath at tha.t she did this, but subsequently admitted it. said she did it as she had had so many miscarriages, but she had had a daughter by her first marriage which had lived six months, and that was proof that she 'II)uld bear a child. She tried to hide her mistake by committing perjury, and it wae in view of this he had gone so fully |! into the farts of the case, His Lordship said he had grave doubts if Lilian Anderson had had a child. He tame to the conclusion that Hettie Blain wa<? a professional abortionist, and that i she had changed truth into fiction, and backed up what he called a conspiracy*on i behalf of those representing these people out in America. His lordship said his view was that Mrs. Slingsby did have a child boru September 1st, 19J0, at 1,5:2, MacAUist^i street, and the statement that she covered; it up by putting forward a difFere! I:hi!d born in another place was an vsn- h'ue statement got up for the purpose., of the ea.e. lie did not wish it though* j he was throwing any blame on the peopl in Kiigland. either the solicitors or' Messrs. Slingsby. who wore cited in the; ease, and who were honourable people, bnt he protested against the way in w the solicitors in San Francisco had C011.. ducted the case at the inquiry over Miera, in interrupting witnesses and akiug unnecessary objections. He had come to the conclusion in favour of the petitioner that this chile was the child of Mr. Charles Sling;-V iy his wife, and was born in wedlock. Theje wae another matter which he thought was conclusive. On one occasion the SHztgwby boy was in court, and he was sir in V with the remarkable like^ss ot this child to Mr. Slingsby. Mr. • Slingsby had a peculiar shaped jaw. The little boy had exactiv the counterpart ot that. He 5poke to coan^el on botlJ sides and suggested that he should like some lissiet- i ance by way of an assessor, and he sug- j gosted some surgeon or medical man. On flunking it over ho came to the oonclu- irion it -was more of a matter for people lccustomed to judge of likenesses. Even- tuafly be aeked Sir George Frampton, the eminent sculptor and Royal Aeademi- can, to come into court to assist him in his judgment—Sir George sat in the jury box. Sir George pointed ?at to bhn the ex- traordinary rmblanoo of the boy to his father, and said be wonld like to see Mrs. SUngsby. He noticed the left ear of the boy was out of shape, and desired to see j Mivi. Slingsby's ear. Accordingly Mr. and Mrs. Slingsby MIDQ to the Judge's room. He intro-j duood them to- Sir George and left th-em together. Sir George afterwards pointed out that i there was a most extraordinary reeem- biases between the boy's left ear and the left ear of the mother. He had not founded liis decision upon tivat resemblance, but it was a very im- i portaztt fact. He th-oaght one may be deofaved by liken-eeses. but a child could not acquire the cast of bi., father's jaw or the shape of his mother's ear that he of, uoiess it was congenital. thoaght the facts of the ease ttieraselves were «ajffi«ien.tiy coorl ofive. but the other matter was absolutely conclusive. He gave judgment for petitioner, atll d deeiaTed t-hiq child to be the lawful child of Charles Henry Reynard SliDgsby and Mrs. Dorothy Morgan SMngaby. j It was agreed that the question of costs ) •hofrld stand over for arrangement be- tween the parties. During the discussion, his Lordship re- ferring to the procx-edin-gs in America, ioaid he quite aertnitted the father, who wtuji now dead, and th-e two gentlemen eited of having been in any way parties to what he believed to be a grievous fraud. His Lordship inquired if the property wae a rich property. Counsel for petitioner eaid it was Dot at present, and erven the parties cited might succeed to the estate, as there waa only one life between it and them. Counsel asked if leave to appeal would be given if hi3 clients were not satisfied with the judgment. His Lordship said he did not th'hk It was nece" ntjary, but if it was, leave would |M given.

[No title]









[No title]