|
Waterford Peerage Claim The Petition Dismissed Beresford v. Attorney-General and others. (Before Mr. Justice Coleridge) The hearing of the claim made by George Tooth, of Crescentwood Road, Sydenham, to the Waterford peerage came to a sudden end in the Probate, Divorce, and Admiralty Division today. After Mr. Gill had addressed Mr. Justice Coleridge on behalf of the trustees of the Waterford estates, Mr. Cairns, counsel for the petitioner, announced that, in view of the evidence given by the respondents witnesses, he did not think that it would be seemly to take up his Lordship's time by addressing him. His Lordship then reviewed the evidence which had been given, and concluded by declaring that the petitioner, was born in the Holborn Workhouse on January 25th 1872, the son of Georgina Tooth, who was the sister of a servant employed by the Marchioness of Waterford, and that he had no connexion, legitimate or illegitimate, with any member of the Waterford family.
The claim was made in the form of a petition by 'George Beresford, sometimes know as George Tooth, of 8, Crecsentwood Road, Sydenham, in Surrey', a gardener, for a declaration under the Legitimacy Declaration Act that he was the lawful son of John Henry De La Poer, fifth Marquess of Waterford. The respondent was the present Lord Waterford, an infant, who appeared by his mother, as guardian ad litem.
Mr. Alexander Cairns and Mr. Towers Settle appeared for the petitioner; Mr. Gill, K. C. and Mr. Ashworth James for the trustees of the Waterford estates; Mr. Hume-Williams, K. C. and Mr. Bayford for the present Lord Waterford; and Mr. J H Pilcher for Attorney-General.
Mr. Gill, in addressing the Court, said that the ensue set up by the petitioner involved the existence of a wicked conspiracy. Not a tittles of evidence had been given to substantiate the charged made except the testimony of the witness Bell, who must be either demented or an impudent liar. Libellous, scandalous and infamous charges had been published broadcast about Mrs. White in the place where she lived. If there had been the slightest desire on the part of anyone representing the petitioner to make any proper inquiries, if the petitioner had had some sane friend and not some wretched woman prowling about and seeking for gossip from people in cellars and other places, he might have been saved from the ridiculous position in which he had been placed.
Mr. Justice Coleridge - Mr. Gill, there is such a things as attempting to force an open door. I want to hear what Mr. Caines has to say.
Mr. Pilcher, on behalf of the Attorney-General formally submitted that the petition should be dismissed.
Mr. Hume-Williams intimated that he did not propose to address his Lordship. He adopted what had been said by Mr. Gill.
Mr. Cairns said that in view of the evidence which was given yesterday, he did not think that it would be seemly to take up his Lordship's time by addressing him. His solicitor client had thought from the materials placed before him that the bringing of the case to a hearing would be better, at any rate, then a campaign by placards or by newspaper discussions. He had felt that the petition had the right to have his witnesses put into the witness box. He (Counsel) had called those witnesses and he felt that his duty had ended.
Mrs. Torr rose from her seat in the body of the Court, and said: - 'As my name has been frequently mentioned ---- ' She was at once directed by the ushers to sit down, and she resumed her seat.
Judgment
Mr. Justice Coleridge then gave judgement. He said: - In this case the petitioner claims real and personal property, and applies by petition to this Court for a declaration that he is the legitimate child of the firth Marquess of Waterford, born on March 29, 1873, in lawful wedlock. The respondent says that the petitioner is the child of one Georgina Tooth, and was born in the Holborn Workhouse on January 25 1872.
On August 9th 1872, Mrs. Vivian, the divorced wife of a Captain Vivian, was married to Lord Waterford. At that time she was living at 7, Upper Brook Street, Mayfair, but in the autumn of 1872 she moved to 23, Chesham Place. There, on March 29, 1873 she was confined. There was a doctor in attendance, named Gream, and Lady Waterford's maid Pricilla Kynaston, and possible, other persons were present at the birth, and their account is that the infant was born, and that it cried, but that after a short time it died. The little dead body was handed to Priscilla Kynaston by Dr. Gream. All the household knew of its death.
His Lordship referred to the burial of the child at Brompton Cemetery on April 1st, and continued:-
Three days later Lady Waterford died, and it was decided that, in the sad circumstances, the little thing which had been born of her body should be buried with its mother at Curraghmore, the family seat. Mr. Pitney has proved that exhumation and the making of another coffin, which was somewhat more elaborate that the original one, and which was also encased in blue velvet. That coffin was taken by Mr. Pitney to Ireland. He travelled with it, and did not lose sight of it, and I have the most conclusive evidence of its interment in Ireland. The family vault was either full or it was thought advisable not to bury the two coffins in it and therefore a brick grave, or vault had been prepared. A great many members of the family attended the funeral, and in that new brick grave at Curraghmore were placed the body of Lady Waterford in her coffin, and alongside it, the body of the still born infant. No one doubted these facts at the time; no one thought of doubting them. There was a tomb erected with an inscription on it that Lady Waterford had died and was buried with her still born child. Later in the church an exquisite monument was placed to the memory of Lady Waterford showing her robed, with her infant nestling at her side.
These facts have been proved before me. I am asked by the petitioner to pronounce, in face of these facts, that the child was born alive, and that it survived; that it was smuggled out of the house 27, Chesham Place without the knowledge of any of the servants, no one knows whether; and that some dead body was smuggled into the house without the knowledge of any of the servants; no one knows whence; that Dr. Gream knowingly gave a false certificate; that Pricilla Kynaston, now Mrs. White was privy to this conspiracy, and that her account of what occurred is a tissue of lies; and that Lord Waterford, who had had a son and heir born to him and members of his family were privy to this conspiracy. All I can say is that I should be eredulous indeed it if were to adopt so incredible a story based on nothing but insinuation.
Who is the Claimant?
His Lordship asked: - Who, then is the claimant? He referred to the birth, on January 25, 1872 in the Holborn Workhouse, of a son - of Georgina Tooth, the sister of Sarah Tooth, a servant in the service of Mrs. Vivian, and the death of the mother nine days later. He continued: - The death of this friendless and deserted girl and the survival of the little, derelict infant were brought to the knowledge of Mrs. Vivian, Mrs. Vivian, whatever may have been her frailties, seems to have been a very warm-hearted woman. Mrs. Vivian was at that time, at the convent, no doubt, an occasion in the life on anyone which would enlist sober and humane thoughts.
The child of Georgina Tooth had no lawful claim on Mrs. Vivian. Compassion alone determined her to provide for it. She sent Pricilla Kynaston to the guardians of Holborn Workhouse to take the child to the convent, and on February 21 1872 it was christened in the name of 'George Tooth'. By that name the claimant has since been known, and in that name he now brings his suit. A kindly, respectable women of middle age, Mrs. Duncan, was found to take charge of this little, derelict orphan. It cannot be denied that the child handed to Mrs. Duncan was the claimant. As George Tooth was living, and was shown at 7, Upper Brook Street, where his maintenance was paid for, in the autumn of 1872, he could not be the child of Lord and Lady Waterford which was born at 27, Chesham Place, dead or alive, on March 29, 1873. The petitioner attempts to combat that by urging that Mrs. Duncan did not take charge of the childe before April 1873. That is merely pure contradiction. The petitioner himself was too young to know, and the evidence on this point which has been presented to me I entirely decline to accept.
Incapable of Gratitude
Further the claimant urges that his upbringing was paid for my Lord Waterford after Lady Waterford's death, and that that was suspicious conduct on the part of Lord Waterford and ground for supposing that he must have been his father. The real truth of this, Lord Waterford was undoubtedly deeply moved by the tragedy of his wife's death. It was natural, it was very creditable, that he should wish to continue the maintenance of the little orphan, the subject of such a disinterested charity of the part of his dead wife. I find that it has been conclusively proved before me that Lady Waterford was, on March 29 1873 confined of a still born child, and that she and her little one sleep together in Curraghmore churchyard. It has also been proved before me, and I also find, that the claimant is the son of Georgina Tooth, and was born in Holborn Workhouse on January 25, 1872 and that he has not, and never has had any connexion, legitimate or illegitimate, with any member of the Waterford family. The petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Solicitors - Mr. F. H. Adams for the petition
News of the World March 3rd 1915
Times Editorial February 2nd 1918
The Times Law Report February 26th 1919
The Times A Solicitors Bill February 27th
1919
|
Pamela Bishop ©2002 - 2006 All rights reserved
last updated 16/11/2010 17:49
