AN UNSAVOURY CASE

New Zealand Mail, Issue 1626, 29 April 1903, Page 52

AN UNSAVOURY CASE

(F rom Our Special Correspondent.) LONDON. March 13. It is a matter for congratulation that the Courts have, at any rate for the present, done with the notorious Gordon Paternity his wisdom Sir Francis .leune has given the custody of the child of the erstwhile wife of Mr “Eric” Gordon to that gentleman, and has thus declared the legitimacy of the infant. Whether “Eric” Gordon was aware (as his late wife and her present husband. Lord Granville Gordon, and half a dozen other witnesses of more or less repute, attempted to prove) of his wife's) infidelities is a point that need not be argued. Sir Francis Jeune gave him the benefit of the doubt, and suggested that his conduct was not isucli as to place him under tlie ban of connivance at his wife’s dishonour, and -since the judge heard every word of the evidence" and is undoubtedly as good a judge of the value of a man or woman’s testimony a.s may be found in the length, and breadth of the empire. we must honour liis decision and write down “Eric” Gordon as a particularly confiding sort of individual with a splendid faith in his wife and her dear friend, his half cousin—a friend so dear that, on “Eric” Gordon’s own showing, the lady ‘‘greeted sail” lest her marriage should interfere with their platonic intercourse. By Sir Francis Jeune’s decision “Eric” Gordon is absolved from tlie charge of complicity in the 'shameless immoral) ry which preceded the child’s birth, and as regards the mother and her present husband tliere is no profit in discussing their sliame. It is the interests of the little girl that are really of importance, and it is a relief to find that the legal decision does not hand her over to tlie woman who, as Sir Francis said, “has so terribly misconducted herself” and who, be it rev marked, gave no evidence in Court or being in the least ashamed of her depravity. Sir Francis lin his summing up. gave both Lady Granville Gordon and her erstwhile" husband credit for courage of sorts in fighting for possession of the child, but the “courage” exhibited by the woman can scarce be admired. Her love for the child-did not prevent her front doing her utmost to brand tlie poor little girl for life as the offspring of a particularly flagrant violation of tlici marital chastitv. For her sake, if not for their own, both parties to the strife would, one might have imagined, have made desperate efforts to get the case tried “in camera,” but apparently neither party made any attempt to prevent the public airing of their dirty linen. Altogether it is a sad and shocking case, the "only redeeming feature of which ig the fact that the .seal of illegitimacy has not been placed upon the child. Whether “Eric” Gordon will be able to enforce the dercee of the Court andi get possession of the little one remains to be seen. Lady Granville Gordon has disappeared with the child, and so far no trace of her whereabouts lias been discovered. If, as seems to be the fact, Lady Granville Gordon has left the country with her child, to avoid compliance with the order awarding its custody to her former husband, it will be a matter of some difficulty to enforce obedience to tlie order. A writ of. attachment, or an order for committal for contempt of court can have no terror for a woman who is be yon d the jurisdiction of the English Courts. Whether, or how, the lady could be compelled in a foreign country, where she has taken refuge, to give up possession of the child would depend on the law of that country. There can be no doubt, however, that the Court lias power to issue a writ of sequestration against her estate. (Our cablegrams Have inforhued us that Lady Gordon fled to the Continent with the child.l ,