The Bagot Will Case.

Thames Star, Volume X, Issue 3144, 17 March 1879, Page 1

The Bagot Will Case.

On January 14 the Bagot will ease came before the Court of Appeal, constituted of the Lord Chancellor, the Lord Chief Baron, the Master of the Bolls, and Lord Justice Deasy, in an appeal from an order of Judge Warren, President of the Probate and Matrimonial Di?ision, refus• > ing a new trial applied for by the defendants, Messrs Bernard W. Bagot and Joseph A. Holmes, who propounded the will of the late Mr Charles Neville Bagot, which was impeached by his widow, Mrs Bagot. The new trial had been applied for on the ground of misdirection on the part of the learned judge, especially in connection with the finding of the jury as to whether the testator was of sound mind,. memory, and understanding at the time of the exeoution of the will, the form of the finding on thatpbint being that the testa* tor was not of sound mind, memory, and understanding as regards the paternity of the child of Mrs. Bagot, which was bora . three months after their marriage in August 1875. The estate in dispute consists of realty in Ireland of between £5000 and £6000 per annum, and personalty of about £65,000. In opening the appeal, Mr Macdonogh, Q.C.. said the chief point in the case was whether the testator was labouring under any insane delusion as to the paternity of the child. The theory of Judge Warren was that the testator having married the plaintiff at the time he did and in the condition she then was must have been taken as acknowledging the paternity of the child; that there were several instances of his acknowledgment of it; that up to March, 1876, there were no traces of doubt about itß paternity on his part; but that, after travelling with his brother, Bernard Bagbt, one of the defendants, between March 13 and 14, he suddenly changed his opinion and there was no satisfactory reason given for it; that Bernard Bagot, while travelling with him, poisoned his mind on the point. The counsel, referring to the visits of the Misses Verrier to Mr Bagot at the Alexandra Hotel, London, and there haying latch-keys of tbeir own house in Eaton-square, said " Just fancy two young women living in Eaton square with latchkeys to let them in at night, like wild young men ? " As to believing one word of what Mrs Bagot swore/the counsel said he would satisfy their lordships that it would be impossible. She had sworn in the Dublin Police Court that there was a previous marrirge but there was not a word of truth in that, and it had to be abandoned. This woman, he laid, was compelled to invent ■ a which she must have learnt out of some French novel. The Lord Chancellor asked if there was any evidence from the people in Mr Bagot's hotel, where the plaintiff used to visit and stay till 1 or 2 in the morning, as to the exact relations between them at that time. Mr Macdonogh said that there was not, and that Mrs Bagot did not state at all that there was any intercourse in January, February, or March. It was merely endeavored to be spelled out by observations and argument. The counsel then referred to the document which Mrs Bagot signed before their marriage, in which she promised to give, up air her fast and tipsy acquaintances, and her lovers and adcame his repugnance, anu \\ mt The give up all her folliesi for v. -q, DU t marriage was solemnised on August...' she did not.sleep with him at his hole that night. She never in the whole course of her life slept with him. In reply to the Lord Chanceller, Mr Macdonogh said that when she was married by the Key. Mr Bainsford, no statement was made to him by Mrs Bagot or anyone else of a previous marriage* The arguments were continued the next day, when Mr Macdonogh, Q.C., for the appellant, continued his address, reading letters from Mrs Bagot to Bernard W. Bagot, from September, 1875, to February, 1876, in which she addressed him as " My dear Bernard," sent her love, to his wife, thfnked him for present of game, and at the time of the birth of the child, in October, wrote that the earlier marriage had been kept private for strong: family reasons. He asked what were; these strong family reasons ? They had heard nothing about them until the baby was born,—until the recognition was complete, and until the husband signed the registry of the birth. She was kind to him, but when everything had been achieved, matters took a very melancholy turn. They quarrelled frequently during those months, and there was no doubt the quarrels were about the child, as Mr Wjatt's evidence demonstrated, that gentleman having testified that in an altercation between Mr and Mrs Bagot, at which he was present, the former said, " you know it is not my child." In answer to the Lord Chancellor, Mr Macdonogh said this was the first explicit statement that the child was not his. Beferring to a letter written immediately after the birth of the child, in whiph the testator addressed his wife as "My darling," and hoped that the fairies had not taken away the child during the night, the counsel submitted that it was penned while he was in a maudlin atate. Two days after his marriage he had said to his solicitor, Mr Vallance, of London, that lie could never have a child. Mr Butt addressed the Court on behalf of Mrs Bagot. Mr Macdonogh, Q.C., replying on bohalf of the defendants, said this was the case of a man who, commencing life with a few hundred pounds, by his great capacity and indomitable will realised a fortune of £160,00& He was* man who never in his whole life exhibited the slightest loss of mental power, but he was found mad by the verdict of a Judge because ho would not succumb te a presumption of law and believe what he knew to be false—namely, that he was the

father of this child. In this abnormal case, contrary to the traditions of their law, which required that the Judge should record the verdict of a jury, the fury, with reluctance, recorded the verdict of the Judge. The counsel having concluded his argument, which has lasted twelve days, the Court decided to reserve their judgment.