A GARDENER'S CLAIM

Lyttelton Times, Volume CXVII, Issue 17703, 1 February 1918, Page 5

A GARDENER'S CLAIM

THE WATERFORD PEERAGE. TRIAL COMMENCES. By Telegraph—Prose Association—Copyright. Australian and N.Z. Cable Association. LONDON, January 30. The hearing has been commenced of the Waterford peerage case, in which George Beresford, p. gardener, asked for a declaration that lie was tho lawful son of the fifth marquis, who married Florence Vivian after a divorce action in 1870. Respondents allege that Beresford is a natural son of Georgina Tooth, and that he was born in the Holborn Workhohse. Georgina Tooth was a sister of Airs Vivian’s cook. .STORY OF THE ACTION. Tile Waterford peerage case has been proceeding for some time. When it was last under consideration it was stated by counsel for the defendants that the plaintiff a gardener, asserted that lie was Marquis of Waterford and entitled to the title and tho estates. The defendants alleged that on March 29, 1873, the wife of tho fifth Lord Waterford died after having had a stillborn child, and they were buried together. The Marchioness had a cook whose sister, a woman named Tooth, about that time or a little earlier gave birth to an illegitimate child. Out of sympathy Lady Waterford took Tooth’s child out of the workhouse, and after her death the Marquis had it educated. The defendant’s case was that that child was tho claimant, but the claimant said ho was the child alleged to have been stillborn.

It was stated that in 1903 the plaintiff began to make these assertions, and as the only people who knew anything about the matter were getting old tho trusters' of the present Lord Waterford brought an action to perpetuate testimony. The chief person who knew anything about the matter was Mrs Priscilla White, formerly maid-com-panion to Lady Waterford, who was instrumental in taking the child out of the workhouse. In 1913 an order was made for the examination of the witnesses before an examiner in London, and Mrs White was examined and crossexamined at great length. Another witness was a Mrs Vivyan, a great fdiend of Lady Waterford, who was in possession of some facts with regard to the birth of tho stillborn child. In 191-1 the claimant proceeded agajnst Mrs White for slander, in a statement made bv her that he was not the Marquis of Waterford. The statement of claim was struck out, and Beresford's appeal was dismissed- The claimant's case is that Lady Waterford's child was not stillborn.' According to his case, the child was brought from tlie Marquis's house,. where the birth took place, to the house of a Mrs Jones, where it had been ever since. Beresford then stated that he wanted to put dates to Mrs White, which would show that her story that the claimant was fifteen months old when taken from the workhouse was absolutely untrue. He suggested that she received £SOO a year for life for what sho did. The claimant also contended that the dowager marchioness refused to allow the marquis to bring his wife to any of the family .mansions-

On that occasion Mr Justice Harridgo refused to order the attendance of Mrs White, aged seventy-one years, and Mrs Vivyan, aged seventy-eight, to attend the trial.

(The present holder of the title, the 7th Marquis of Waterford, was born on January 6, 1901, and succeeded on the death of his father in 1911- The 6th marquis was born on April 28, 1875, and succeeded to the marquissato in 1895, marrying the daughter of'the Marquis of Lansdowne two years later. The present heir is Lord William Mostyn dp la Poer Beresford. who was born in 1905. and an uncle of the present marquis. Admiral Lord Heresford is the second son of the 4th marquis and the great uncle of the preseiit.)