Rensselaer Union, Volume 7, Number 31, Rensselaer, Jasper County, 22 April 1875 — A Strange Story. [ARTICLE]

A Strange Story.

It is little more than nineteen years since a laborer, wandering over Hampstead Heath —a favorite place of popular recreation near London—found a man lying dead on his back on the rise of a small mound in a spot which seemed to have been carefully selected. By his side were a bottle labeled “ Essential oil of almonds” and “ Poison,” containing a small quantity of that preparation, a silver cream-jug redolent of prussic acid, and a case ot razors. Among other articles in his pockets was a piece of paper ; op which was plainly written, “John ' Skdleir, Gloucester square, Hyde Park.’ The event at first produced surprise and commiseration, but these emotions qjiickly gave way to others of a widely different order. In a very brief time it became too evident that Sir. Sadleir had ample cause to make life a burden to him, if the pangs of conscience and the dread of shameful exposure could do so. His career was most remarkable. A native of Tipperary, in the middle class of life, Sadleir was admitted an attorney at the age of twenty-three But before long, having obtained the agency of the great estates of Lord Portarlington and other noblemen, he rose from the position of a Quarter Sessions attorney to that of an important land agent. In 1847 he contrived to get a seat in Parliament as member for Carloy, and in 1852 was appointed by Lord Aberdeen as as Lord of the Treasury. Sadlier was a man of great ability, but of yet greater ambition. So long as he was content to stick to what he understood, he succeeded; but there came a time when he began dabbling in speculations which were beyond the range of his experience, and these brought him to grief. One of his chief objects was to buy enormously in the Incumbered Estates Court, in anticipation of the rise which he correctly anticipated would in a few years take place in Irish property; and it was mainly the devices to which he resorted to raise money for this end which caused him to plunge into a dozen schemes, and ultimately resulted in the ruin of himself and all connected with him. .. _ It was a remarkable circumstance in connection with this case that almost from the first the people of Ireland never believed in the identity of Sadleir with the body found on the heath. Nor were the disbelievers confined to Ireland, or to the unlettered. There were undoubtedly circumstances in the case which tended to invite the suspicion that it might have been the body of another man. The accounts of the proceedings at the inquest are strangely silent as to the satisfactory identification of the body, and the piece of paper with “John Sadleir’’ on it in the pocket of the deceased prevented inquiries. (The body was found early on a Sunday morning, a circumstance which suggested to some minds that a day would thus be likely to elapse before much stir took place in'the matter. And the sum of £1,300 in notes and cash paid to Sadleir on the day before, could never in any way be traced or accounted for. There was a- disposition on the part of the Coroner to bring the inquest to a somewhat abrupt close before the dark doings of the deceased had been hinted at, and there were those who, when doubts began to be

freely raised, recalled the fact that the Coroner himself was a max against whom grave charges had been brought, and who was reputed to have been intimate with Sadleir. Another strange circumstance subsequently ascertained was that, while the ground all around was muddy, the boots on the feet of the corpse were quite clean. On the other hand, a post mortem examination revealed the presence in the stomach of essential oil of almonds. The theory of those who believe that the body was not that of this great defrauder is that a body sufficiently similar was procured by him and his friends in some mysterious manner, and that he trusted to the assistance of those whom he knew would attend the inquest, and the notorious fact that death does change a man’s appearance sometimes in such a manner as to render him almost unrecognizable, to complete one more fraud. Wild as these conjectures may appear, there are cases on record almost sufficient to justify them, and only last month there arose an instance in point. l A few weeks ago there was found in the river Avon, in Somersetshire, a woman whose remains bore marks of injury. An inquest was held and adjourned. In reopening the inquiry the Coroner commented upon the strange case of I mistaken identity which had occurred in connection with the case. “In the course of their inquiries the Bath police met with a woman who stated that the description of the deceased corresponded with the appearance of a woman who had been living with a bargeman, and between whom there had been a violent disagreement at Bath previous to their departure in the barge for Bristol. The woman was taken by the police to see the body, and, after a minute examination, which ex--5 tended” to a scrutiny of the teeth, the condition of which confirmed the woman in her opinion, she positively stated that the deceased was the woman she referred to. This identification was positive, and was singularly correct both in general and in detail; and the woman’s testimony would have been unhesitatingly placed before the jury for their acceptance but for one circumstance—-the » simple fact that the woman so carefully examined and so minutely described had been found alive. The lesson of such occurrence was that extreme caution should be taken by juries in the acceptance of evidence of identification.” It is indeed a lesson which cannot be too carefully remembered. —2V. Y. Sun.