exceedingly difficult for them to carry in their minds the cases of the eight different prisoners. If they had any difficulty in that respect after they retired, -for he presumed they would retire,-and would return and state it to him, he should be happy to read any portion of the evidence to them. He purposely declined, he said, to use any exhortations to them to do their duty in a matter so momentous. He would only urge them to endeavour to find a just and true verdict, without fear of the result either one way or the other.

The jury left the Court, and returned after a considerable interval with a verdict of Guilty against seven of the prisoners, namely, Lyons, Blanco, Duranno, Santos, Watto, Marsolino, and Lopez; Acquitting the prisoner Carlos.

On being asked, through interpreters, what they had to say why sentence of death should not be pronounced upon them, some of the prisoners, especially Blanco, Duranno, Santos, and Lopez, made statements incriminating each other, the witnesses Powell and Williams, and to some extent the second mate, but most of them agreed in absolving the carpenter Anderson and the boy Early. According to Santos, Duranno and Lyons killed the mate. Lopez declared that some of the prisoners were innocent; that there were four who committed the three murders; and that the two men who had been discharged were the most guilty of all. Lyons made no statement, nor did Marsolino. Blanco particularly complained of ill-treatment and of the way in which the ship was victualled, leaving it to be inferred that those were the exciting causes of the mutiny. He also stated that Carlos, with others, was concerned in killing the captain's brother.

Mr. Baron Bramwell, having assumed the black cap, said, addressing the convicts,-You have been found guilty of the crime of wilful murder, and it is now my duty to pass upon you the sentence of the law. After some experience and very much reflection, I have come to the conclusion that I shall best discharge that duty by adding to the form of words prescribed by law no observation of mine of any sort or kind. The learned Judge then pronounced the sentence of death in the usual form, and it was afterwards interpreted to them in their own languages.

The prisoner Carlos, though acquitted on the capital charge, was afterwards indicted and convicted of the offence of scuttling the vessel, and was sentenced to of penal servitude.

ten years

An account of the execution of some of these unfortunate men and of the mercy extended to the others, will he found in the Chronicle (ante).

III.
GEDNEY v. SMITH.

The features of this very singular case more resemble those which form the basis of a modern sensational novel than the actual occurrences of real life. It arose upon a Bill filed by Miss Harriet Frances Holgate Gedney, a minor, to obtain a declaration that she was the issue of Mr. Patteson Arthur Holgate Gedney by his late wife Harriet Gedney, and the execution of two settlements securing certain property under the marriage settlement of that lady and gentle

man to the issue of the marriage. The plaintiff claimed to be their only child, and her case was, that Mr. and Mrs. Gedney were married in the month of May, 1851; that from 1851 up to 1854 there was no issue born of this marriage, but that in the month of February, 1854, Mrs. Gedney was confined of the plaintiff under the following circumstances:-Mrs. Gedney discovered herself to be in the family-way in 1853, and in the beginning of 1854 came to London to take medical advice as to her general state of health, more particularly as to her spitting blood. On the 10th of February, in the last-mentioned year, while staying at lodgings in Park-street, Grosvenor-square, she was suddenly seized with the pains of labour, and sent to King-street, Lincoln's-inn-fields, for a person calling himself Dr. Goss, who delivered her of a female child, the plaintiff. Mrs. Gedney immediately sent off to her husband, who was in Lincolnshire, to come up; her husband got the notice of her confinement on a Sunday morning, and started by the next train to London to see her; he was dissatisfied with her being attended by Dr. Goss, whom he immediately paid off and discharged, together with Mrs. Goss, who also appears to have assisted at the accouchement; Mr. Gedney then immediately went to Dr. Farre, an eminent physician at the west-end, and engaged him to attend upon Mrs. Gedney; Dr. Farre did immediately take up the case, and attended upon Mrs. Gedney from the time he was called in—which was three or four days after the alleged confinement-until Mrs. Gedney returned to Candlesby Hall; Mr. Gedney duly registered the plaintiff as his child before leaving London, and had her baptized as soon as he got back to Lincolnshire Mrs. Gedney's brother, Mr. Stapleton Smith, the principal defendant in this suit, standing godfather to the child at its christening. From the birth of the plaintiff in 1854, until the death of Mrs. Gedney in 1857, the plaintiff was always treated by Mr. and Mrs. Gedney as their only child, and so received in the family. Almost immediately upon the death of Mrs. Gedney, and on the very day of the funeral, Mr. Gedney received a letter from Mr. Smith, Mrs. Gedney's father, alleging, for the first time, that the plaintiff was a supposititious child, and not really the child of Mr. and Mrs. Gedney; and since that time Mrs. Gedney's family, so far as the settled property is concerned, had disputed the plaintiff's right to such property. In answer to the case of the plaintiff, the defendants, as the representatives of Mrs. Gedney's family, and entitled to the reversion of a considerable part of the settled property, failing any real or legitimate child of the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Gedney, contended that the plaintiff was no child of such marriage, but the child of some stranger, procured for the purposes of arresting the gift over in default of children, the defendants' case being that at the time Mrs. Gedney was alleged to be pregnant she was not in the family-way at all, but was principally suffering from venereal disease, given to her by her husband; they undertook to prove by the evidence of medical men living in the neighbourhood of Candlesby Hall, and by the servants of Mr. and Mrs. Gedney, that at the time when the latter came to London she was not and could not have been in the family-way; that from the state of her person, examined after death, she had never had a child; that at the very time of her going into lodgings in Park-street, Grosvenor-square, she could not be near her confinement; that just at the time when it was alleged that she was confined Dr. Goss had gone to a lying-in asylum in the Borough, and bought a child of a poor woman (exactly answering the description of the plaintiff as a child), on the representation to the woman that such child would be adopted by, and brought up as, a lady; that the whole allegations as to Mrs. Gedney's confinement, and the plaintiff being her child, were a tissue of inventions from beginning to end; and that Mrs. Gedney confessed to her

father on her death-bed that they were so. To support or refute these various allegations and many others introduced into the case, the following witnesses were called:

Dr. Farre said, I am a Doctor of Medicine of Cambridge, and Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians, London, &c. I have been in practice for thirty years, and reside at the west-end. I remembered, upon referring to my note-book, being called upon by Mr. Gedney, in the early part of February, 1854, to attend his wife, who had just been confined. Mr. Gedney informed me that a person named Goss had had charge of the immediate confinement of Mrs. Gedney, that he had objections to Mr. Goss, and that he wished me to take charge of the case. I declined to meet Mr. Goss in consultation, but eventually consented to take up the case, on not being required to go into consultation with Mr. Goss and my having the sole conduct of it. I found Mrs. Gedney in bed, in the usual condition a lady would be in who had only been confined three or four days, and I saw the baby, who, as far as I remember, was an ordinary child for its age. I saw Mrs. Gedney every day for the first week, every alternate day for the second week, and during the third week rather oftener-in fact every day from Wednesday till Sunday, owing to the lady suffering from weak breast, or something of that kind. What she was so suffering from was nothing very serious, or I should have remembered it more distinctly. Nothing like puerperal fever, for instance.

Cross-examined by Sir H. Cairns.-The child appeared to be about a two or three days' child. My visits were such as I usually make in such cases. I nearly always feel the womb, the uterus, and the abdomen. If there had been any thing remarkable in Mrs. Gedney's case I should have remembered it. I do not remember whether she suckled her child or not. I know nothing about Mr. Goss. Ladies in their confinement are usually bound up round the abdomen. I have no recollection of when Mrs. Gedney first sat up in bed.

Re-examined by Mr. Edward James.-I keep such class of patients in bed about four days; allow them to get up at the end of a week, then go on a sofa, but not put their feet to the ground until after a fortnight. The third week they may walk about the room, and perhaps move into another room. There was nothing in Mrs. Gedney's case, as I remember, to make me look upon it as different from other cases.

By the Court.-Would it have been possible for the lady not to have been con. fined at all?

Dr. Farre. Certainly not.

By the Court.-Have you any doubt whatever ?

Dr. Farre. Not the least.

The Court.-Have you any doubt that the child had been recently born?

Dr. Farre.-No.

The Court. Was there any thing peculiar to strike your attention, either in the child or the mother?

Dr. Farre.-Nothing whatever.

Mr. Patteson Arthur Holgate Gedney said,-I was married on the 29th of May, 1851, to Miss Smith, the sister of the defendant Stapleton Smith, and continued to reside in Candlesby House until my wife's death in 1857. We had no children born before the plaintiff. There were two or three miscarriages. I remember Mrs. Gedney being in the family-way in the year 1853. She expected to be confined in the spring of 1854. I remember her going to London in the early part of 1854 to consult a medical man. I received two or three letters from her at that time, but have lost them. In her last letter from London she said she had been confined P

of a little girl, and one so fair that she intended to call her little Lily. I left Candlesby by the next train. It was on a Sunday. I arrived in London at two in the morning, and, as it was so late, did not go and see Mrs. Gedney till 9 o'clock. I found Dr. Goss attending her; made inquiries about him, and was not satisfied with what I heard. Paid him his fee, and dismissed him. In seeking for another doctor, went to Dr. Ferguson first, and then went to Dr. Farre. There was a wet nurse. My wife complained of a difficulty in suckling, and was ordered not to do So. The wet nurse was dismissed, as her milk did not agree with the child. I got a second nurse from the Middlesex Lying-in Hospital. Got a third nurse by advertisement who remained twelve months. I went with Mrs. Gedney when she was churched, at a church close by our lodgings in Park-street. This was the first time she left the house. Never had reason to suppose the plaintiff was not my child. My wife treated the child kindly, as a mother would. My wife died in my house in March, 1857. She was ill about a month, and died of consumption. During her illness she treated the child with affection and love. The child was registered in London, and baptized on its return to the Hall, my cousin, Miss Healey, a Miss Fowler, and my wife's brother, the defendant, Mr. Stapleton Smith, standing sponsors. From her birth to the present time I have no reason to doubt the plaintiff being my child.

Cross-examined by Sir H. Cairns.-I lived in the same house with my wife in Park-street. Mrs. Stevens was the name of the landlady. Saw her last in court this morning, and she pointed out to me her husband. The income of the 2000Z. settled by Mrs. Gedney's family was to be applied for the use of her child after her decease. I never applied to the trustees till 1863 for such income. I then applied through my solicitors, Messrs. Staniland and Co. Messrs. Staniland are not now my solicitors. I have had my suspicion that plaintiff was not my child. A letter from my wife's father, received on the day of her funeral, first raised my doubts. I did not see Dr. Goss after this letter from my wife's father. Never saw either Dr. Goss or Mrs. Goss since. Saw Mrs. Stevens two years after I received this letter, and my suspicions were continued up to that time. I could not find Dr. Goss, although I endeavoured to do so. Do not remember whether it was in 1859 or 1860 when I saw Mrs. Stevens. I did execute a deed dated in April, 1860, which expressed a doubt as to the legitimacy of the plaintiff. My then solicitor prepared the deed, but without my authority. I took no step from 1857 to 1860 to clear up my suspicions. I did not believe the statements in my father-in-law's letter, although they raised my suspicions and doubt. I intended to have taken steps to have it declared that plaintiff was not the issue of our marriage. My wife came up to London in the beginning of February, 1854. She brought no maid with her. She did not come up to be confined, but intended to be confined in Lincolnshire. Dr. Grantham sometimes attended my wife, and a Dr. Porter, a friend of her family, sometimes saw her. My wife went to London to consult a doctor, because she spit blood. I only saw Dr. Goss once, when Mrs. Goss was also in the room. I do not know whether Mrs. Goss is a female accoucheur. I paid them their fee-eight guineas, I think. The wet nurse, a Mrs. Osborne, stayed two or three days afterwards. I do not know whether she was or was not employed by Dr. Goss. I sent her away because her milk did not suit. Dr. Goss advised my wife not to nurse her child. There was no monthly nurse. I know a Miss Conway Walters. She is my cousin, and was at Candlesby during my wife's last illness. I do not remember the names of any of the cooks, ladies' maids, or housemaid at that time. The coachman's name was Inch; the farm bailiff's, Wray. Do not remember any dressmaker's name. Do not remember

complaining of my wife's unkindness to our child, or of the child being meanly dressed. I remember my wife consulting Dr. Blundell; but do not know whether she did so about her confinement. My wife and I did not live happily together. She suffered from venereal disease-syphilis. She got it from me. I have been married since my wife died in 1857. I am separated from my present wife. There is no case before the Divorce Court. Two days before the present Bill was filed I made an absolute appointment in favour of the plaintiff.

Re-examined by Mr. James.—I am separated from my present wife by mutual consent. Mr. Staniland, the solicitor, was introduced to me by my wife's family, and my first business with him was my marriage settlement. He acted for the Smiths as well as for me. My wife wore flannel over her breast to prevent the milk oozing through and spoiling her dress.

By Sir Hugh Cairns.-That was before she was confined ?-Very shortly before.

By the Court. Did you see Dr. Farre in presence of your wife ?—I believe so. By the Court.-Are you quite sure Dr. Farre saw your wife at all ?—I am quite sure that Dr. Farre saw my wife.

Miss Harriet Walter called, and examined by Mr. James for the plaintiff.-Was on intimate terms with Mrs. Gedney, and was staying at Candlesby in 1853, when that lady was in the family-way, and expected her confinement in the following spring. She was treated by every one as a person in the family-way would be, and after the child was born she always behaved kindly, and as a mother would to it.

Mr. Patteson Gedney was recalled, and, in answer to questions put to him, said it was a Mr. Uppleby who told him he ought to get rid of Dr. Goss, as a most improper and unfit person to attend his wife.

This being the case for the plaintiff, the evidence for the defendant was opened with the deposition of Dr. Porter, which testified to his going with Mrs. Gedney to Dr. Blundell in 1852, when she was pronounced not to be in the family-way, though she thought she was. She was anxious to be in the family-way, and constantly fancying herself so. He (Dr. Porter) saw Mrs. Gedney after her death, and from the appearance of her body she had never had a child.

Dr. Grantham, of Lincolnshire, was then called and examined by Sir Hugh Cairns for the defendant.-He attended Mrs. Gedney professionally in 1853, in August and September. Since he was compelled to answer, he was bound to say it was for a form of venereal disease. He arrived at no conclusion as to whether she was in the family-way or not. He thought not, judging from appearances. She was a thin, spare, fragile creature.

Cross-examined.-Did not consider her disease secondary symptoms, but gonorrhoea. A woman who has had a child may avoid discovery. Mrs. Gedney, in 1853, led him to believe she was in the family-way. Had known cases of women not being discovered to be in the family-way until birth of child. The present style of dress was likely to conceal pregnancy. Never knew a case where a married woman wished to conceal such a condition. Could not come, from his own observation, to a satisfactory conclusion as to whether Mrs. Gedney was pregnant or not.

A number of servants and people living about Mr. and Mrs. Gedney were then called, and deposed to the plaintiff as a child not being like her alleged parents; to Mrs. Gedney not behaving like a mother to the child; and to her presenting no appearance of pregnancy previously to her going to London in 1854.

Mary Stevens, examined by Sir Hugh Cairns.-Lived in 1854 in Park-street