THE SLINGSBY PATERNITY CASE.

Auckland Star, Volume XLVI, Issue 69, 22 March 1915, Page 8

THE SLINGSBY PATERNITY CASE.

SON OB SUBSTITUTE ? A SCULPTOR'S TESTIMONY. (From Our Special Correspondent) LONDON, February 5. Among the few law cases which have been treated with something more than scant respect in the matter of space by newspapers since tl_e ssar began is the Slingsby paternity -case, which in its season quite held its own with even alleged war news. Certainly the case of the Slingsby baby, who has just obtained a declaration of his legitimacy in the Probate division of the High Court, presented as many singular and puzzling features a* any that has come before a Probate judge for many years.

Under the terms of the settlement of the Slingsby estates, the child was heir to them in succession to his father, who petitioned on his behalf for the declaration obtained from Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane this week. It had been asserted that the infant, Charles Eugene Edward, whom Mrs Slingsby declared to have been born to her in San Francisco, -was no Slingsby; that he was not Mrs. Sling-shy's child, but that of a certain Lillian Anderson, born in the house of a Dr. Fraser, "whose practice lies in the interesting neighbourhood of Chinatown, San Francisco. Lily's child, it was alleged, had been presented to the unsuspecting Mr Slingsby as his own. This strange story of a plot to deceive Mr. Slingsby, and to keep his brothers out of the succession to the settled estates, was denied by his wife; but, most unfortunately, Mrs. Slingsby had advertised in San Francasco for a newborn child "for adoption." and had afterwards sworn falsely that the advertisement i was not hers. That was. remarked the judge, "probably the cause of ail the trouble." The explanation, offered was I that "she -was determined that, ii she I could not take back to her husband a, child of her own, she would take back ( another." "Sot -_u\_"t_xaX\.y, "wben. these \ J things became known to Mr. Slingsby's ' brothers they had their doubts as to I ' whether Charles Eugene Edward had! really any claim to call them "xincle," | and made inquiries. They got evidence] of a sort in support of the theory of a substituted child, but it was plainly of a I very dubious character. Almost all the evidence was taken on commission in the j United States and Canada; and the) learned judge's decision stigmatises the story- as a tissue of deliberate perjury.. The second thing that appeared plainly was the strong likeness between the child and the father who claimed him as his own. Mr. Justice Bargrave Deane j was as much struck as anyone by this, I yet had doubts as to its evidential value; presumably he based his doubts on the possibility of the likeness being part coincidence and part imagination, from which even judges are not necessarily free. He then took, with the consent of both sides, the probably unprecedented step of calling in an authority on physical likeness —the famous sculptor, Sir George Frampton; not as expert witness, but as assessor to aid him in arriving at his decision. The summoning of Sir George to act in this capacity was, legal experts state, well within the legal powers of the judge, and since our legal system recognises scientific, medical, and nautical assessors, there seems to the lay mind no earthly reason why an artistic assessor should be barred. Anyhow, the judge's action was most fortuj nate, for the assessor not only confirmed fully the general impression that Charles Eugene was "the image" of Mr. Slingsby, but further drew . attention to a new fact, namely, that the infant's left ear was as much like Mrs. Slingsby's left ear (which, it appears, has certain uncommon peculiarities) as if it had been modelled from that feature by Sir George himself. Very marked resemblance having been noticed in the boy in regard to both parents, a case already strong became, in the judge's view, overwhelming, and he had no hesitation in declaring Charles Eugene to be the lawful offspring of the man who claimed him as son, and heir to the Slingsby estates.