Rensselaer Republican, Volume 14, Number 21, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 9 February 1882 — A Romantic Story. [ARTICLE]

A Romantic Story.

New York Commercial Advertiser. A curious case has just come to light in the Surrogate’s Court that has quite a tinge of romance and fiction, but, in fact, there is none attached to it. The story is best told oy Mr. William H V. Gardiner, a lawyer of Broadway, who acted as counsel for the young lady on whom the whole cass hinges. Some twenty-three years ago a Mr. John Baker, a lawyer of this city, died, leav ing, among other bequests, a legacy of some SIO,OOO to an orphan fchild named Margaret Kirby, the only child of John Kirby, who, in his lifetime, was a great friend of Mr. Baker. Under the will, Mr. John Roach, the shipbuilder, was appointed excutor. When the will was probated, Mr. Selim Marks, a real estate broker, was appointed guardian of the young child, then between 3 4 and 4 years old, by the Surrogate. After remaining with him a short time the child was placed iD the Catholic Orphan Asylum in Mottt street. Shortly after her admisison a lady called there to see the child, representing herself to be a relative, and under the pretense ol buying some clothing for it, was allowed by one of the Sisters to take it away for that purpose. Neither the child nor lady ever returned. Efforts were made to trace the child, but without success. The child came of age about four years go, and Mr. Roach renewed his efforts to ascertain her whereabouts if living. For a long time he was unsuccessful, and it was not until last July he discovered her to be living with a family named McMahon, a contractor and builder, between Eighty-tbird and Eighty-fourth streets on Second avenue. She had been living with them for the pa9t twenty-one years, and they having no children of their own, in a sense, adopted the child and gave her a good education at their own expense. She always bore her proper name, however, of Margaret Kelly. As soon as the lost child was found proofs of identity were sought for, and but little difficulty was experienced on this point. The parties recently appeared before Surrogate Calvin, and the identity being made satisfactory to him, made an order for the payment of legacy due and interest thereon. Mr. Roach drew the check for the amount due to the young lady, and was pleased to see the right party had been found to whom the money belonged.

British Gold Won in Horse Racing A New York special of the 20th says: F. Theodore Walton, whose betting exploits in England have gained him fame as the “American Plunger,” arrived to-day from England. “Mr. WaJton. what is a plunger?’, was the first question a Sun interviewer put to him. " ‘Plunger,’ said he, “is an Eualish expression applied to a man who lays down large sums of money in sporting affairs. People don’t bet in England as they do here. They bet small sums. I suppose the average bets of wealthy Euglish peop e are of £SO and £IOO. There are only two or three persons there who bet as large as £I,OOO, aud I bet many thousands of poundaon a single event.” "How much Euglish money did you Win?" "I won about £93 000 or about $405 - 000.' I won £75,000 on Foxhall alone in three races—-the Grand Duke Michael, the Cesarewitch, and the Cambridgeshire. I won £9,000 <m Iroquis in the St. Leger, but lost £45,000 on him in the championship for all age race, by Bend Or. I lost and won at a great many races, which squared one another outside of my principal winnings. Avon £10,400 on Rothschild’s mare Nellie at Newmarket, and I won on two of Sir John Astley’s horses, £5,000 on Leghorn and £4,700 on his Medicus after the ‘diff he had with me.” “Did you go over there expecting to be tbd ‘plunger’ that you became?” ,

"Not at all. I was over there in the spring and I came home and stayed here about two months. I bet while I was there aud won about $85,000. I went back because I was subjected to hay fever, and incidentally while I was there I put down some money on the races ih England. I was alone in whatever I did, and I acted on my best judgment. It. is not true that I always bet onlAmerican horses, as you have seen in the instances I have mentioned I put my money on the American horses only when I thought they could win. I tried to keep thoroughly posted about the horses and I bet accordingly. My giving money to jockeys has been the subject of talk. They did not like it over theie. The bookmakers did not like it, and some of the newpaper men and the sporting men seemed to think, it was not right. I have more than once given as high as £SOO to a jockey, but always on con-t. dition that he won. It would have been different if I paid him to loose, but I never did. Why shouldn’t Ido so? Suppose you had £20,000 ou a horse, couldn’t you afford to give £IOO or even £SOO to protect yourself, especially if you thought it might be an object to the jockey to lose it if you didn’t do so? I did my betting entirely with the bookmakers. Over there the bookmakes are very rich. They are the hawks and the public are the chickens. They don’t like me because I was not a chicken. I was a hawk among them, and that upset their calculations. Then again, they could not understand how anybody could lay down such large sums of money. They were not used to it.” "Did you not bet with private persons?” "Not at all. I would not have got my money if I had, but the bookmakers were good if ? won a million.” “How did the public take your oper ations?” “They went wild about it. They made a regular curiosity of me. As I passed among these people I could hear them talking about “The Plunger,’ and pointing me out to one another. They could not understand how a man could lay such large sums at a time on races.”