Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Historic Doubts On The Birth-Place Of Celebrated Men;
acquiescence , for upwards of eighty years , of the relatives and friends of the late duke ; and on this latter ground alone , we consider the statement sufficiently sustained , for the averment is fully supported by all that class of testimony usually required by courts of justice to establish such a fact . The following observations of two eminent equity jud on questions
ges , of this nature , arc so apposite that we deem them worthy of citation here . "In making out a relationship , " said the erudite Eldon , " you may clearly give the declarations of a relative in evidence ; for , has it ever happened in ordinary conversation that you heard a declaration made without something leading to itas that natural effect of the
know-, ledge of the relation making the declaration ? " ( Lord Chancellor Eldon , in Walker v . Wingfield , 18 Vesey ' s Oh . Reports , p . 446 . ) And Lord Chancellor Erskine , in a similar case , said , " Upon these questions , inscriptions upon tombstones are admitted , as it must be supposed that relatives of the family would not permit an inscription icithout foundation
to remain . So engravings upon rings are admitted , -upon the presumption that a person would not wear a ring with an error upon it . " ( See Vowies v . Young , 13 Ves . p . 143 . ) As regards the allegation , therefore , that the birth-day of the late duke was the 1 st of May , 1769 , we are on the whole of opinion that there can be littleif any doubt ; forin
addi-, , tion to the various announcements and the letter of Lady Mornington on the subject , hereinbefore noticed , we are enabled to add also our own testimony , having frequently heard the venerable and excellent mother of the illustrious hero
declare that her son Arthur , Duke of Wellington , was born in Dublin , on the 1 st of May , 1769 . But whether the late duke was born a few minutes before or a few minutes after twelve o ' clock on the night of the SOfch of April does not materially affect the merits of the main question , vis ., his "birth-place , " and which we may fairly conclude was the
city of Dublin . Daily experience shows how frequently questions respecting births and birth-places arise before our judicial tribunals , in cases of legitimacy , peerages , and claims to real property ; therefore , we have thought the subject deserving of more than ordinary comment ; but we are happy in being able to
express our conviction that doubts on matters of such a nature are not likely to arise henceforth , at least in this country ; for , in order to provide a remedy against the recurrence of evils similar to those which accrued under the old
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software.
Historic Doubts On The Birth-Place Of Celebrated Men;
acquiescence , for upwards of eighty years , of the relatives and friends of the late duke ; and on this latter ground alone , we consider the statement sufficiently sustained , for the averment is fully supported by all that class of testimony usually required by courts of justice to establish such a fact . The following observations of two eminent equity jud on questions
ges , of this nature , arc so apposite that we deem them worthy of citation here . "In making out a relationship , " said the erudite Eldon , " you may clearly give the declarations of a relative in evidence ; for , has it ever happened in ordinary conversation that you heard a declaration made without something leading to itas that natural effect of the
know-, ledge of the relation making the declaration ? " ( Lord Chancellor Eldon , in Walker v . Wingfield , 18 Vesey ' s Oh . Reports , p . 446 . ) And Lord Chancellor Erskine , in a similar case , said , " Upon these questions , inscriptions upon tombstones are admitted , as it must be supposed that relatives of the family would not permit an inscription icithout foundation
to remain . So engravings upon rings are admitted , -upon the presumption that a person would not wear a ring with an error upon it . " ( See Vowies v . Young , 13 Ves . p . 143 . ) As regards the allegation , therefore , that the birth-day of the late duke was the 1 st of May , 1769 , we are on the whole of opinion that there can be littleif any doubt ; forin
addi-, , tion to the various announcements and the letter of Lady Mornington on the subject , hereinbefore noticed , we are enabled to add also our own testimony , having frequently heard the venerable and excellent mother of the illustrious hero
declare that her son Arthur , Duke of Wellington , was born in Dublin , on the 1 st of May , 1769 . But whether the late duke was born a few minutes before or a few minutes after twelve o ' clock on the night of the SOfch of April does not materially affect the merits of the main question , vis ., his "birth-place , " and which we may fairly conclude was the
city of Dublin . Daily experience shows how frequently questions respecting births and birth-places arise before our judicial tribunals , in cases of legitimacy , peerages , and claims to real property ; therefore , we have thought the subject deserving of more than ordinary comment ; but we are happy in being able to
express our conviction that doubts on matters of such a nature are not likely to arise henceforth , at least in this country ; for , in order to provide a remedy against the recurrence of evils similar to those which accrued under the old