WHOSE CHILD AM I?

Greymouth Evening Star, 16 July 1928, Page 2

WHOSE CHILD AM I?

SOME ASTOUNDING STORIES

Was Gaby Deslys/ the famous actress, a changeling? The question was raised in connection with the disposal of her fortune.

There have been many dramatic and romantic stories of child changing in real life.

One rich in the elements of oldtime melodrama will .ever cling to the Slingsby estates, near Knaresborough. Commander Charles FI. R. Slingsby, of the Royal Navy, married an American woman in 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 he 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, impressed by a resemblance of jaw between Mr Slingsby and the boy, called to his assistance a distinguished sculptor, who not only gave confirmatory evidence on this point, but stated that the left ear of the child resembled that of Mrs Slingsby. For this and other reasons judgment was given for the boy as the son of Miami Mrs Slingsby. The scene then changed to the Appeal Court, where evidence given at the trial against the boy was strengthened. It was shown that Mrs Slingsby had advertised for a child for adoption, that one born in an institution had been offered her, that she had accepted it and had it registered in her own name, and that this child was the one round whom the fight was being waged. The judgment was consequently reversed, and in the end the House of Lords also decided against the boy. An even more remarkable drama of child changing was enacted in France. One day the son of the Marquis de Coucy and a number of his friends were amusing themselves outside the Military Academy when a decrepit and hideous old woman approached them and offered to tell their fortunes. Some ot them promptly accepted. When young Coney’s turn came, the old woman, after examining his hand for some time, rejected it disdainfully. “Back, fellow!” she exclaimed. “I am here to speak only to gentlefolk, and not to tell the future destiny of a peasant’s son.” As a result, a groom was called to drive the woman away, and he did so, though not till he had declared that “she” was a man.

BELATED CONFESSION. About six months afterwards, as the 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 from the husband of the woman (Medeleine 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 legitimate heir taken from his cradle and my poor son substituted for the noble child. The imposture still continues, and it is the son of Maurice Lesourd and Madeleine Ledaille that, in your princely mansion, occupies the position due to your legitimate heir, whose youth has been condemned to the weary labours of a rustic life.” Naturally, the marquis and his wife were affected by this startling news. While they had 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 sent 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. Gossip, however, soon acquainted him with the claim that had been put forward, and then he remembered the fortune-teller and the declaration of the groom that “she” was a man. This caused inquiries to be made, and it

was found that Lesourd had entered a certain tavern, asked for a room whore he could disguise himself, and left in the character of an old gipsy woman.

Then came a dramatic incident. While the marquis, with his agent, who was the 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 have succeeded.

In proof of his assertion, he secreted*, a portfolio he had brought with him, and ordered the animal to hunt for it. The sagacious creature soon found it, and brought it to the marquis. As the latter took it from the dog, there dropped from it a, letter addressed to him. It was signed “Madeleine Lesourd,” and the material part ran: — “I am on my death-bed, and at this awful moment truth is a duty I owe to you .... Three years have passed since my husband . . . besought me to pass our son Pierrot as yours, but I have always refused to commit this crime. Nevertheless, I fear that after my death this guilty design will be persevered in. I, therefore, apprise you of the sure means of its detection. In his childhood Pierrot fell into the fire, and the accident has left visible marks on his legs and left arm.”

Thus the plot was discovered. Both Lesourd and his brother-in-law were sent to prison; but the marchioness gave Pierrot, the false heir, some money, and. he went to America, calling himself the Count de Coucy. Of many other- amazing attempts to carry out similar impostures the most singular, perhaps, was a sequel to a murder. Dr. Harvey Burdell was seen to enter his house one night, and shortly afterwards a sharp, startled cry was heard by several people. In

the morning he was found dead. Under the same roof lived a number of other people, one of whom was Airs 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 Dr. Burdell, and that the witnesses were her eldest daughter and the clergyman’s maidservant. But the clergyman, though he had no hesitation in identifying her as the woman he had married, failed to identify the body as that of the husband, nor could Iho 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 was a wealthy man, and that the murder was the culmination of a plot to get his money. Mrs Cunningham was indicted for his murder, but acquitted.