The Sun.
London, England, 1837-12-12 00:00:00

MORRIS V. DAVIS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment this morning in this
case, the arguments in which were only concluded a few days
since. The principal question in the case was as to the legi-
timacy of the appellant, Mr. Morris. As long ago as
1788 Mr. Morris, who was at that time a surgeon of
eminence, residing at Shrewsbury, married the mother
of the appellant. Some time after their marriage Mr.
and Mrs. Morris separated, and the latter retired to a
house of her own at Llanfair, where she lived in a state of
adultery with one of her own servants, named Austin, and as
was contended for by the respondent, who was the husband of
the daughter of Mr. Morris, the result of that illicit inter-
course was the birth of the appellant. On behalf of the latter
however, it was contended, that after the separation, Mr.
Morris went frequently to see his wife, that upon one
occasion he slept at her house, and it was, therefore
to be presumed from that circumstance, that the appel-
lant was legitimate. Upon the case coming before Lord
Eldon, that noble and learned Lord, in consequence of the
great conflict of the evidence relative to the legitimacy of the
appellant, directed an issue to try that question, and in the
firstlinstance a verdict was given in favour of the appellant;
upon a new trial being granted, however, a contrary
decision was come to. Upon the part of the appellant this ver-
dict was contended to be erroneous, and a new trial was applied
for and obtained; the result of which was, that the jury were
discharged without coming to any verdict ; and upon au appli-
cation being made to Lord Lyndhurst, who was then Lord
Chancellor, his Lordship intimated to the parties that it would
be much better to have the whole question involved in the
cause decided than to have a new trial ; upon which it was
agreed that his Lordship should read over all the papers, and
decide all the questions in litigation between the parties.
Lord Lyndhurst, upon due consideration, decided against the
appellant, and from that decision the present appeal was
brought. The Lord Chancellor, after going at considerable
length into the facts of the case, stated his opinion to be, that
the appellant had failed to prove that he was the legitimate son
of Mr. Morris, and such being the case, he should move their
Lordships to affirm the judgment appealed from, but, consider-
ing the lengthened litigation that had taken place, and the
great doubts that had existed relative to the legitimacy of
the appellant, in moving that affirmation, he should recom-
mend their Lordships to affirm the judgment without costs.
Lord LYNDHURST, though he had attended most anx-
iously to the arguments of counsel, had heard nothing to
induce him to alter the opinion he had formerly expressed.
It was clear that up to Mr. Morris's death he was not aware
of the birth of the appellant ; upon a rumour reaching him
that such was the case he put the question to his wife, who
positively denied that she had had a child ; this together with
the circumstance of the secrecy attending the birth of the ap-
pellant, clearly showed to his Lordship that he was not the
child of Mr. Morris, but that of the paramour of his wife.
The judgment of the Court below was then ordered to be
affirmed, but without costs.

COMMON PLEAS.-(THIS DAY.)