Mr. Bloor returned from his work at eight o’clock,
when his wife despatched him for Dr. Wilkins, a medical
man whom Mrs. Howard specially requested might be summoned,
although he was not the family doctor, and lived at
a considerable distance. At half-past nine o’clock
Mr. Bloor returned without the doctor; and was told
by his rejoicing spouse, that her lodger had been safely
delivered of a son under her own superintendence, and
that the services of the recognised accoucheur could
be dispensed with. Proud of the womanly skill
of his wife, and glad to be spared the necessity of
another wearisome trudge through the streets, he gladly
remained at home, and Dr. Wilkins was not sent for
several weeks, when he saw and prescribed for the
infant, who was suffering from some trifling disorder.
Unfortunately, this fact could not be proved, nor could
the doctor’s evidence be obtained as to Mr.
Bloor’s visit, as he had died before the case
came on. But Mrs. Bloor, who attended Mrs. Howard
during her confinement; Miss Rosa Day, sister of Mrs.
Bloor, who assisted her in that attendance; Miss Jane
Richardson, sister of Mrs. Howard; and Mr. Baudenave,
their fellow-lodger, were all alleged to have seen
the child repeatedly during the three following months,
although it was admitted that its existence was kept
a profound secret from everybody else. The three
women above-mentioned were placed in the witness-box,
and gave their evidence clearly and firmly, and agreed
with each other in the story which they told; and,
although Mrs. Bloor was rigorously cross-examined,
her testimony was not shaken. When Mr. Baudenave
was wanted he could not be found, and even the most
urgent efforts of detectives failed to secure his
attendance before the court.
On the other side it was contended that the story
told on behalf of the infant plaintiff was so shrouded
in mystery as to be absolutely incredible, and that
it was concocted by the missing Baudenave, who was
said to have been living on terms of suspicious familiarity
with Mrs. Howard, and who had succeeded in inducing
the witnesses to become accomplices in the conspiracy
from motives of self-interest. Evidence was also
produced to show that the birth had not taken place.
A dressmaker, who measured Mrs. Howard for a dress,
a little time before the date of her alleged confinement,
swore that no traces of her supposed condition were
then visible. Dr. Baker Brown and another medical
man deposed that they had professionally attended a
lady, whom they swore to as Mrs. Howard, and had found
circumstances negativing the story of the confinement;
and Louisa Jones, a servant, who lived in the house
in Burton Street shortly after the birth of the infant,
said she had never seen or heard of its existence.
After the hearing of this evidence the case was postponed.
On its resumption Mrs. Howard produced witnesses to
show that she was at Longley, in Staffordshire, during
the whole of that period of August, 1864, to which
the evidence of Dr. Baker Brown and the other medical
witness related.