The Sun.
London, England, 1830-02-02 00:00:00

MORRIS V. DAVIS.

The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment on the
main point in this case, respecting which three
several issues have been directed. The facts have
been se often stated, that it appears unnecessary
again to detail them at length. They are chiefly
that Mr. Morris had been separated from his wife
by mutual agreement, and resided at a considerable
distance from: her. During this separation she bore
a child, the present plaintiff, and the question whet her
he was to be considered as the legitimate child of
Mr. Morris, or as the offspring of an adulterous in-
tercourse between Mrs. Morris and a young man
named Austin, who had been her husband's servant,
was the subject of the several issues. His Lordship
now recapitulated the facts which had been proved in
evidence on the trials. He dwelt particularly on thear-
guments used by the plaintiff's counsel, that there had
in fact been some intercourse between Mr. and Mrs.
Morris after the separation, and that therefore such
sexual intercourse was to be presumed us might
have made the husband the father of the plaintiff.
O❑ this point he said the evidence was not so satis-
factory as to induce him to adopt the conclusion that
there had been any such intercourse. He then
went through that part of the evidence which re-
lated to the birth of the child, the concealment
of that fact from the husband, the vehement
denial of the wife that any such birth had taken
place, and the death of the husband in ignorance
that a child had in fact been born; the circumstance
of the child being taken, at the peril of its life, a
few days after it had been born, a distance of thirty
miles, to the mother of Austin ; its being baptised
in his name, and as " a base born child," educated
at school in the same name, and Austin's having
left by his will all the small property,he possessed to
the child, and without making any provision for
his mother and father, who were persons in humble
life and necessitous circum,tances. His Lordship
then adverted to the rule of law as laid down in the
case of the Banbury Peerage, and in " Head and
Head," Turver v. 1, p. 138, and which is, that
where there is personal access, under such circum-
stances that there might be sexual intercourse, the
law raises the presumption that there has been ac-
tually sexual intercourse, and that presumption must
stand till repelled by evidence that there was not
such sexual intercourse. His Lordship read the
opinions of the Lord Chief Justice and Mr. Justice
Redesdale, in which the same principle was recog-
nized ; and, alluding to that pronounced by Lord
Erskine in the same case (the Benbury Peerage),
said it was impossible forany lawyer to concur in the
doctrine laid down by the latter. The evidence, as
it stood, was sufficient in his mind to repel the pre-
sumption that such sexual intercourse as was con-
tended for had taken place, and therefore he was of
opinion that the legitimacy of the plaintiff was not
proved.
Mr. SOLICITOR-GENERAL applied to his Lordship
for a declaration to that effect in the case.
Mr. HOULE objected, as irregular in the present
stage of the cause.
After some discussion, it was agreed that the
cause should come on this day se'neight, for further
directions.

There was no other business of general iateres
before the Court.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Fru. I.
EX-PARTE THE MAGISTRATES OF NEWTON.

The ATTORNEY-GENEII.AL moved for a rule to
show cause why a criminal information should not
be filed against the proprietor of a newspaper in the
West of England, for a libel on the Magistrates of
the division of Newton, in Devonshire. The pub-
lication complained of arose out of the circumstance
of the Magistrates having refused a licence for a
public-house to a petson of the name of Marcany,
who appealed to the Sessions, where it was
granted. The consequence of this was, that in the
article in question the writer had thought fit to im-
pute to one of the Magistrates that he had exercised
corrupt influence over the others, to induce them to
refuse the license; and he charged them all with
" jobbing," and holding their sittings in secret.
The Learned Counsel read the article, which ap-
peared to be in the form of a letter from-a corre-
spondent.—Rule nisi granted.
TILE KING V. MARSDEN AND OTHERS.

Mr. lIUNPHRBY stated, that in this case, at the
sittings after last term, the defendants had been
convicted of a libel on the Duke of Wellington,
published in the Morning Journal newspaper, and
had received notice to appear on Thursday next, to
receive the judgment of the Court. He was in-
structed to apply on behalf of the defendant Isaac-
son, for a rule to show cause why that person
should not be allowed till next term to appear. The
affidavit stated that he was a Clergyman, holding the
living of St. Paul, in Demerara. He had come
over to England on leave of absence for a year; and
that time having expired, he had been ordered to re-
turn. If he did not do so immediately, his living
wot;ld be taken from him. He had no doubt that
he should be able to return before the next term,
and as he had already entered into securities to ap-
pear to receive thejudgment of the Court, he
hoped their Lordships would allow the time for his
appearance to be postponed. He was not the au-
thOr of the libel, but merely a proprietor of the
paper.—Rule nisi graai:4,

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, FEB. 1.
7,Thig was the day on which it was expected that
the new Judge wo-41d take his seat; but in conse-
quence of some mistake in the patept, which it took
c;'..w time to recmify, owing to the necessity of its
being sent but: to Windsor, his Lordship was not
sworn in before the rising of thm Court.

PREROGATIVE COURT, FEII. 1.
ILTID NICEIOLL, ESQ. V. DAINES.
The testator in this case was Robert Spinksy
otherwise Newsome, a bastard and a minor , and
the question related to a paper of equivocal charac-
ter, alleged to be testamentary, but wanting only

certain legal requisites to be a deed of gift. The
testator was the illegitimate son of Robert Spinks;
yeoman, of Peasenhall, Suffolk, who subsequently
married the mother, by whom he bad another son;
John Exeter Spinks, born in wedlock. The former
was born in 1796, the latter in 1806. Mary Dairies,
the party in the suit, was a servant in the family,
who had the occasional care of these children ; she
was a friend of their mother. By his will Robert
Spinks bequeathed a sum of 5001. to his illegitimate
son, the testator in the cause, and left the residue of
his property jointly to both sons, when the youngest
came of age. Robert Spinks the younger died in
1815, aged 19. Shortly previous to his death, lie
drew up a paper in the following terms :—" I,
Robert Spinlis, in the presence of the under-men-
tioned witnesses (naming two persons, whose sig-
natures were attached), do give my goods and chat-
tels to Mary Dairies." Of this paper, which bore
date the 29th of June, 1815, Mrs. Dairies, as exe-
cutrix arid universal legatee, in 1828, took probate
in common form. Soon after, however, it was re-
called at the suit of the King's proctor, who, on
behalf of the Crown, sought an intestacy, on the
ground that the paper was not testamentary, arid
that the deceased had been under influence and con-
troul. The property is about 15,0001. After hear-
ing Counsel,
The COURT intimated that it would give sentence
on a future day.

POLICE INTELLIGENCE.

MANSION-HOUSE.

Yesterday Ann Johnson, an unfortunate woman of
the town, and John French, a man of decent ap-
pearance, were charged by a night patrol, named
Lyman, under the following circumstances, before
the LORD MAYOR, who sat for the first time during
his severe illness :

Lyman, on going his rounds on Sunday night at
eight o'clock, was addressed by two young men, who
told him that the woman was going to rob the man,
who was in a state of intoxication. He watched
accordingly, and perceived that the female had got
into her possession the man's bundle. Witness, who
gave a very confthed account of the affair, then inter-
fered, and the woman gave back the bundle to the
owner, who thereupon accused him (the patrol) of
having stolen it. Under these circumstances, the
witness took both into custody, and lodged them in
the watch- house.

The LORD MAYOR asked the patrol whether be
knew any thing of the woman ?--Iyman knew her
to be a common street-walker. He had followed
and watched the two for some time.

Mr. nobler—Why you said just now that your
attention was first called to the woman by two young

men.
The defendant French, who is a butcher, and
person of good character, certainly had been at the
time in liquor ; but denied most positively that the
woman had robbed him, or that she had attempted
to do any thing of the kind. He also declared that
the officer's interference was quite unjustifiable.
J. Watkins, of No. 19, Bishopsgate-street, ob-
served the woman walking near the other defendant
at the time above stated. He saw Lyman shake his
stick at her, and afterwards he heard the sound of a
mast tremendous blow, and on looking round saw
the unfortunate woman reel and tumble down. It
was evident that she had been struck by Lyman.
Witness followed on, to see how the matter would
end. The'conduct of the officer was most brutal.
Lyman—Why you bear towards me, and
I shall look after you.
The LORD MAYOR reprimanded the officer for
having thus conducted himself towards the witness.
Charles Snell, of 27, Little Sutton-street, had ob-
served the transaction, and he confirmed the account
given by Mr. Watkins.
The LORD MAYOR stated that Alderman Cope-
land would particularly investigate this case, along
with others, in his own ward, on the following day.
Mr. Goldham, the clerk of Billingsgate-market,
came to the Justice-room, in consequence of the evi-
dence given at an inquest held before Mr. Payne,
the Coroner, cn the body of a man who was drowned
at Billingsgate on Friday last. That evidence was
calculated to make a very erroneous impression. It
had been stated that the deceased had fallen off a
plank which was no more than nine inches in width.
Now the planks were not less than twenty-one
inches in width, and it was the duty of one of the
witnesses to have placed two of them together.
But it happened also that the deceased did not fall
from a plank but front the side of a boat. Every
sort of precaution was, in fact, used to prevent ac-
cidents
at Billingsgate : gas-lights were properly
placed, and drags were always in readiness; but the
traffic was so very great, that accidents were some-
times inevitable.
The LORD MAYOR expressed himself satisfied at
this explanation.
GUILDHALL
Matthew Carter, the constable of Bread-street
Ward, charged on Saturday with having stabbed
his wife, was brought up for re-examination yester-
day, before Sir J. PERRING.
The officer who had him in custody reported that
he had visited Mrs. Carter, and found her much
better ; and that she stated her opinion to be that
her husband was not conscious of what he was
doing when he inflicted the wound. The officer
also put in the certificate of Mr. Holmes, the sur-
geon, which stated that he had no hesitation in
saying she was now out of danger.
Upon these representations the Alderman ad-
mitted the defendant, to bail, himself in 801., and two
sureties in 401. each.

BOW-STREET.
Yesterday Mr. Milton, who lately carried on the
business of a horse-dealer on an extensive scale in
Piccadilly, was charged before Sir It. BIRNIE and
Mr. HALLS, with having stolen two geldings, the
property of Mr. Elmore, the well-known horse-
dealer of Duke-street, Arancliester-square.
The case occupied a considerable time, but the
facts may be briefly summed up. It appeared that
Mr. Milton had failed in business some time ago, and
Mr. Elmore became one of his assignees. The
stock of the bankrupt having been sold by auction,
the premises, situate in Pear-tree-yard, Piccadilly,
where he had conducted his business, were rented
by Mr. Elmore, who employed Mr. Milton as his
agent or assistant to superintend the concern.—
There was no express stipulation as to the amount
of remuneration he was to receive, but it was un-
derstood that he was to be paid for his trouble, and
Mr. Elmore distinctly swore that he considered him
in en other light than his servant. The business
of jobbing was carried on in the yard, and sums of
money to a large amount came into the hands of
Mr. Milton. On the 20th of January last Mr.
Elmore, who also carried on business in Duke-
street, Manchester-square, came to Pear-tree-yard,
and directed his clerk there to make out an account
of the monies received and paid by Mr. Milton
during his management of the business. By this
statement, it appeared that Mr. Milton was indebt-
ed to Mr. Elmore in the sum of 1,1001. on the job
account, and that he was further indebted to that
gentleman in the sum of 0001., on account of horses.
As a setoff against these sums, the sum of 500/.
was accounted for by Mr. Milton, in the purchase of
horses for Mr. Elmore, and on the day when the
above account was made out, Mr. Milton took Mr.
Elmore round the yard, and pointed out to him se-
veral horse!' which he alleged he had purchased on
A‘,
oriric.dlatAf
Milton,
eriolarti trans-
pired, account of that gentleman, 'and paid for with his
money.p
re d
anrcEdo;:nasieceoi
re?
accompanied
ple‘nrnvpeecasneentnioecfidel something
eeldi
aalsiysi
logeerdr k"t
IPDer.:k:lr'etarryeldoett a partner of mine ?" to which Mr. Mil-
ton replied in the negative. Mr. Elmore then called
upon him to say in what capacity he appeared, to
which Mr. Milton answered, " As your servant, to
be sure, and I trust to your generosity to give me
whatever you please." Mr. Elmore then charged
Mr. Milton with having paid away some bil)s ac-
cepted in the name of Milton and. Co., and finally
told hin he would lifyve nothing more to do with

him. Mr. Milton, however, refused to go, observ-
ng, " You have got plenty of money by the con-
cern, and if you come to that, all the horses here are
mine." He then told Mr. Elmore he might do his
best, and that be would take possession of the yard,
horses, and all. In fulfilment of this threat, Mr.
Milton, after he went away, returned to the yard
and took away a horse, and carried off another on
the same day, in spite of the remonstrances of Mr.
Elmore's clerks and servants. Upon these grounds
Mr. Adolphus contended that a clear case of felony
had been established against Mr. Milton.

Mr. Curwood maintained that the evidence would
warrant no such conclusion.

Mr. HALLS observed, that the difficulty which he
saw in the case was this—had Mr. Elmore made
out his ownership to the horses alleged to be stolen
by such evidence as would leave no doubt of the
fact ? All that had been proved upon that point
merely went to show that certain horses, including
the two that were the subject of this inquiry, had
been purchased by Mr. Milton for Mr. Elmore; but
he (Mr. Halls) was of opinion that a mere declara-
tion to that effect was not a sufficient proof of

ownership.
After a considerable discussion,

Mr. HALLS was clearly of opinion that no evi-
dence had been offered to prove a felonious inten-
tion on the part of the accused; neither had it been
proved that the property iu question was legally
vested in the prosecutor; and under these circum-
stances he should not feel himself at all justified in
entertaining the charge.
Sir R. BIRNIE agreed in this opinion, and after
an ineffectual endeavour had been made to induce
the Magistrates to hold Mr. Milton to bail, that per-
son was discharged, and the parties retired.