WHOSE CHILD AM I?

Evening Star, Issue 19952, 23 August 1928, Page 16

WHOSE CHILD AM I?

SOME ASTOUNDING STORIES CHANGLINGS IN REAL LIFE Was Gaby Deslys/ the famous actress, a changeling? , The question was raised in connection with the disposal oj her fortune. '.There hayo been mauy dramatic and romantic stories of child changing in real life. • One rich in the elements ot old-time melodrama- will over cling to the Slingsby estates, near Kuaresborough. Commander- Charles H. it; Slingsby, of the Royal .~Nayy, married an American woman m .the United States, and ten years afterwards a boy . was born." Mrs Slingsby: declared this was her child, whereas--other members of the family contended ho was the son of-a woman living in San Francisco. - Three years later an . action was started in that city, and the: depositions taken There, amounting to one.

million words,, were sent to London,, where proceedings were continued, in the High Court. A curious feature of the trial was that the judge, un- ; pressed by a- ? resemblance (of. jaw.; boj tween Mr Slingsby and tbe : boy, called to his assistance a distinguished sculptor, who pot ; only gave confirmatory evidence on-this point, but stated that the left ear .of the child resembled that of Mrs- .Slingsby. hoi this and other reasons-judgment was given for the boy as the sou of Mr and Mrs Slingsby. . :■ i The scene.then changed,to the Appeal Court, where evidence given at the trial against the boy was strength-; ; oned. It was-shown that Mrs Slingsby' ■ had advertised for a child ..for- adoption, that one born in an institution bad been offered her,- thaiysho had accepted it, ami had it registered in her own name, and that this ‘child was the one round whom .the .fight was, being waged- The. judgment was con.-, sequently reversed and ~ini the ...end the House lof Lords also “ decided against the boy. i An even more remarkable drama q.'_ child changing was enacted inFranc-. One day the sun of the ..Marquis d< Coucy and a number, of .his .friend r were" amusing themselves outside the Military Academy when a decrepit and hideous old woman approached them and offered to tell their fortunes. Some of them promptly accepted. When young Coney’s turn came, tiny vild woman, after examining his hand for some Viae. rejected it disdainfully. “ Back,;fellow!” she exclaimed. “I am hero to speak only to gentlefolk,, and not to t<ff| the future edstiny of a peasant’s son.” As a result, » groom was called lo drive the woman away, and he did so, though not till he had declared Unit “she” was a man. BELATED CONFESSION

About six.months afterwards,-asthe marquis and his wife were discussing a marriage project for, the count, a visitor was announced, and there was ushered into the room a. young man, who, after tendering a letter, sank on his knees and covered his face with his hands'. The letter, which was t rom the . husband. of the woman (Medclcino Lesourd) who had been the count’s foster mother, read;--“Sixteen years have elapsed since, yielding to the pernicious suggestions of my wife, I committed a horrible crime. . . . This luckless day saw your legif imate heir taken from hi» cradle and 'my poor son substituted for the noble ' child. The imposture still continues, and it is the sou of Maurice Lesourd and Madeleine. Ledaillc that, in your princely mansion,-, occupies the position duo to your legitimate heir, whose youth has-been'.condemned to. the weary "labours of a rustic life;” Naturally, tho marquis and his wile were affected by this : startling nows. While they bad not the heart to discard the young man they had long regarded as their son, they could not reject the claims of" the newcomer. So the visitor was scut away with a handsome sum. for his immediate use, and it was decided, to say nothing about the matter' to the other young'man till investigations had been made. ' ’ tlossip, however, soon acquainted him .with the-claim that had been put forward. and'then he remembered the i’or-tunc-tcller, and tho declaration of the igroom that “ she ” was. a nnin._ This caused inquiries to be made, and’it was s found that Lesourd had entered a certain tavern, asked for a room where he jcould disguise himself, and left, in the [character- of an old gipsy woman, r. Then camo a dramatic incident. i.Whilo the marquis, with his agent, who .was tho brother-in-law of Lesourd, was .engaged in business one. morning he wanted a certain document. His assistant soon found it, and remarked that if he himself had failed his dog would havo succeeded. In proof of his assertion he secreted a portfolio'he had'brought with him, and ordered tho animal to hunt for it. Tire sagacious creature soon found it, and brought- it to the marquis. As tho latter took it from the dog there dropped from it a letter addressed to him. It was signed “Madeleine Lcsourd,” and'tho material part ran: “ J. am on iny death bod, and at this awful mom,cut truth is ;i duty ! owe to you. .' . . Three years have passed since xny husband . . . besought mo,to pass our son Pierrot,as yours, but' \l have always refused to commit this crime. Nevertheless, 1 1 fear that after, my death this, guilty design (will be persevered in. 1: therefore apprise you of the sure means of; its detection. In his childhood Pierrot fell into tho fire, and the accident lias left visible marks, on his legs and left arm;” Thus the plot was discovered. Both Lesourd and his brother-in-law wer® sent to prison; but the marchioness! gave Pierrot, tho false heir, some | money, and ho wen® to America., calling himself, tho Count do Coney. ' Of many other amazing attempts to cany out similar impostures .the most singular, perhaps, was a sequel to a. murder. I)r Harvey, Burde.ll was seen to eater his house one night, and shortly afterwards a sharp, startled cry was heard by several people. : In the morn-, ing he was found dead. • ' : •Under the same roof lived a num-; her of other people, one of whom was Mrs, Cunningham,, a handsome , widow with two daughters. She stated, on hearing of the crime, that about three months previously she had been secretly- married to Hr Burdell, and that tho witnesses were her eldest daughter and the clergyman’s maidservant. But the clergyman, though he had no hesitation in identifying her as the woman ho had married, failed to.- identify/ the body as that pf the husband, nor could the servant say that the body: was that of the man whose marriage she had witnessed. ■ in the end it was suggested that the marriage was actually between Mrs Cunningham—somebody personating Dr Burdell, who a wealthy man, and that the murder was tho culmination of a plot to get his money.- Mrs Cunningham was-indicted for his murder,: but acquitted. Subsequently ehe claimed and received one-third of Burdell’a estate, and then, not content with this, brought forward a bogus heir. This time she did not evade tho law.