£200,000 Left A-Begging Because Woman Ashamed of Past

Sun (Auckland), Volume III, Issue 852, 21 December 1929, Page 22

£200,000 Left A-Begging Because Woman Ashamed of Past

Poverty’s Fight for Fortune of Former Work-House Child.

sWt’ } ’ll rea l life dramas of unclaimed money the womau with a past often pIvISBISJi-J figures conspicuously. VlllbßKSsiu I remember one woman who had dozens o£ names (writes a Next-of-Kin Agent In one of a series of articles penned for "Tit-Bits”). In early life she Was a “gold digger”: but in her old age she lived nearly alone in a large house, a baffling mystery to her neighbours. One day she sent for a ‘'doctor,” and the same night she died, whereupon that practitioner produced a will in his favour alleged to have been made by her when she was dying. Though she had carried most of her secrets with her to the grave, it was discovered that she was illegitimate, and that she had. therefore, no next-of-kin. There were, too, many suspicious circumstances about the will. So it was contested by the Crown. Windfalls for the Crown After the "doctor" had told his Story, he was handed a set of examination papers purporting to be signed by him. "Now,” said counsel, “are those signatures yours?” "No,” replied plaintiff, in a low yoice. “Did you go to the university at all?” “No, I can’t say I did. The fact is,” went on the “doctor” with engaging confidence, "a man named personated me and I personated him in Dublin.” There was a good deal more of this sort of thing, and at last the jury notified that they had beard enough of the case. The judge pronounced against the will, and the Crown took the recluse's estate. Another woman died in Hammersmith. where she had lived as a spinster, intestate and without known heirs, and the Crow a took pos session of her estate, which was found to be worth about £200,000. So large a sum going Pegging could not escape the notice of next-of-kin agents, one of whom began to delve into the woman's past. Cunningly as she had hidden her tracks, he followed them for three years, and at long last triumphed completely. Through his instrumentality nearly all of the intestate's wealth was divided among her next-of-kin, who were wretchedly poor. But what a task was his! A Diary of Lies At first he worked back; but f will set out the main results of his search in chronological order. The intestate began life as the daughter of a poor fisherman, and became successively a workhouse child and a parish apprentice. Discharged from her place in disgrace, she came to London, where, after many adventures and after spending a few years in Paris, she was baptised and married.

In connection with these ceremonies she started to wipe out the past. At her baptism she stated that she wiis the daughter of a couple living in the New Kent Road, and she

followed this up when she applied for a marriage licence by becoming the widow of a master mariner and daughter of Southampton parents. On each occasion she adopted a surname that was non-existent in her native place. ' * She and her mother settled in Hammersmith. There the mother died, whereupon she was, from information supplied by her daughter, who could not miss so good a chance of further disassociating herself from the work house child, described in the register of deaths as a spinster! What was the motive of a third woman—Mrs. Helen Blake, of South Kensington, whose wealth forms the “Blake Millions”—-in refraining from fnalting any formal disposition of her

fortune? As she did not leave either a will &r known heirs, her estate, valued at more than £200,000, irrespective of land in British Columbia, passed to the Crown, which still holds it. An attempt is about to be made to get it transferred to the Irish Free State for administration in that country.

The mystery (such as there is) about Mrs. Blake relates to her parentage. She was the daughter of a Mayo peasant namer Sheridan, and in early life she attracted the attention of Captain (afterward General) R. D. Blake, son of Sir Francis Blake, second baronet, a member of the wealthy Northumbrian coal-owning family. After sending her to a convent to be educated, Captain Blake married her in Scotland, and subsequently they went to live in America, where their only child died. At his death General Blake left his wife his entire fortune. She took up residence at South Kensington, and spent 25 years of widowhood there. So far all is plain sailing; but nobody has succeeded in finding proof of the marriage of Mrs. Blake’s parents or of her birth. Identified! Her neglect to make a will lias given her post-humous fame. The law costs which have come out of her estate amount to about £50,000. One man, a Daniel Sheridan, sold his farm at Quincy, Illinois, and came to London, at the age of seventy, to claim the estate on the ground that he was Helen Sheridan’s cousin. For nearly ten years, despite his age, he pegged away steadily, his resources, and then he" disappeared.

With a clearer case of hiding the past I myself was concerned. A banker’s widow left £50,000 for those who thought they were entitled to it to fight over. Shortly before her death she had handed her solicitor a wallet, stating that it contained a record of her life. On the first page of a diary in the wallet was an entry of her presentation at Court. This could not be traced. A later entry recorded that she was born on a certain date, the daughter of parents whose name 3 were given, that her father was colonel of a Highland regiment, and that she was related to a number of titled persons. All this was fictitious. Her age was much under stated, the Highland regiment never had a colonel of the name mentioned, her alleged birthplace has no existence, and the persons of title whom she named knew nothing about her

In fact, of all the details supplied by her only certain of those of her marriage were indisputable. She described herself as a widow; but she had not, there is good reason to believe, been married before. Generally, however, the particulars of the marriage were fairly accurate. So there was really nothing to throw light on the career of the intestate before her marriage to the banker, and, as £50,000 was at stake, the question arose: If she was not the person she said she was, who was she? Several agents addressed themselves to that question, and eventually one of them thought he had found the answer. He identified the banker’s widow with a woman born in Windsor Barracks, the daughter of a private in the very regiment commanded (according to the entry in the diary) by the intestate’s father. The private’s child, after the discharge of her father, went with him to Manchester, and a few years later began to fend for herself as a domestic servant. Then her life had several purple patches, after one of-which she brought an action for breach of promise, and obtained judgment. At this time she was in London, where she lived at various addresses for 10 years, passing as a widow under the name of the defendant in the breach suit. Among her visitors, there was some evidence to show, was the banker, and it was suggested that in this way she came to marry him.

But the authorities would not admit that the private’s daughter and the banker’s widow were one. Nobody, indeed, has yet satisfactorily unveiled the intestate’s past. Who Was the Woman?

Another woman of great attractions, even in the autumn of her life, left between £25,000 and £30,000 without the least clue to her origin. Of the usual evidence there was none. Diaries, old letters, portraits, books containing inscriptions —these were missing. When, too, the servants were questioned, a blank was drawn. Though one of them had been with her late mistress for 10 years, they could not give any information about her history, except that she was, if her own statements could be credited, the widow of a stockbroker. Even the death certificate was practically useless. In the case of a man, this is frequently a good starting point in these inquiries. The age gives you the probable year of birth, and when you turn up the records for that year at Somerset House, you