APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



263 



was performed in the same house, 

 as proved by a certificate in the 

 Latin language, exhibited in court, 

 in the hand-writing of the Aposto- 

 lic Vicar of the Cathohc church in 

 this city, who was instructed to 

 premise that this child, being the 

 offspring of Timothy and Anna 

 Maria Deasy, was born upon a 

 day, and at an liour, several days 

 previous to the actual birth. 



During this time the plaintiff 

 was left in total ignorance of the 

 fate of her child, until November 

 following ; when, by unwearied 

 exertions, she found him in the 

 possession of Mrs Deasy, thenliving 

 at No. 16, King-square, who, after 

 the plaintiff's repeated importuni- 

 ties, permitted her to enjoy the ob- 

 ject of her sohcitude, as an inmate 

 with the family, for about two 

 months, until the defendant and his 

 wife pretended an urgent visit to 

 Herefordshire, when the plaintiff 

 returned to her former lodging in 

 Denmark-street. 



After various doublings and turn- 

 ings by this couple with their heir 

 of honourable adoption, in Glou- 

 cestershire, Herefordshire, Bath, 

 and places too numerous to re- 

 cord, with the dodging succession 

 of servants hired and discharged 

 out of sight of each other, even 

 apon the king's highway, they re- 

 tarned to Bristol, believing perhaps 

 that they had now totally baffled all 

 endeavours to identify the child as 

 any other than their own, in the 

 •priog of 1810. The ill-fated 

 plaintiffj in the following De- 

 cember, was delivered of a second 

 child. On the 6lh of that month 

 (December, 1810) the defendant, 

 •ed his ever-ready friend, called 

 W>getbei' upon her^ tlica at iodg> 



ings in Upper Maudlin-lane, and 

 urged her to the absolute disposal 

 of the child named Edward Gar- 

 ret Deasy ; offering her an annuity 

 of 50/. per annum, upon condition 

 that she would abandon the sight 

 or knowledge of that her first 

 child for ever. 



This agreement, after much he- 

 sitation by the plaintiff", was at 

 length determined upon, and wit- 

 nessed by the agent alluded to. 

 Accordingly an annuity to the be- 

 fore-named amount was secured 

 upon the bond of the defendant to 

 the plaintiff; for the non-payment 

 of the instalments stipulated where- 

 in, due since Midsummer, 1812, 

 this action was brought. On the 

 following day, the plaintiff was 

 required to execute an agreement, 

 never to divulge or make known 

 any of the circumstances respect- 

 ing her said child, nor to approach 

 near the residence of the defendant 

 or his family ; upon an alleged vio- 

 lation of which agreement, the de- 

 fendant rested his opposition to the 

 obligations of the bond. 



Mr. Serjeant Pell having made 

 an eloquent exposition of the cir- 

 cumstances thus briefly detailed, 

 and proof of the bond being ad- 

 mitted on the part of the defendant, 

 his counsel, Mr. Serjeant Lens, 

 proceeded to call several wit- 

 nesses in support of the defence ; 

 whose evidence went to prove, that 

 the plaintifiF had often visited the 

 residence of the defendant, at times 

 imperatively demanding a sight of 

 her child ; at other times, these 

 visits were presumed to be with 

 the consent of the defendant and 

 his wife, as she brought clothing 

 and caps for the child's use. One 

 witness for the def<HHlant proved. 



