The Sun.
London, England, 1822-12-06 00:00:00

ASSAULT.-IVOLP V. LEVI.

This was an action to recover compensation in damages for
an assault, alleged to have been committed by the defendant on
the plaintiff.
The plaintiff's case was conducted by Mr. SCARLETT and
Mr. 11 u TCIIINSON and the defendant's by Mr. GI! itrz
It appeared that the praintiffand defendant were of the .Jewish
persuasion, and dealers in old clothes, in Hemming's_row, Rag-
fair. Some difference having arisen in trade, a quarrel ensued,
and the blow which was the subject of the present action was
given by the defendant to the plaintiff:
Two witnesses, who were passing through the street at the
time of the affray, proved that they had heard the disturbance,
and saw the plaintiff struck.
Mr. GURNEY, for the defendant, stated, that he did not mean
to deny that an assault had been committed by his client, but
he would prove such conduct on the part of the plaintiff, that
neither Jew nor Christian could avoid resenting if it were
in his power. The evidence he was about so adduce, he hoped
would be quite sufficient to induce the Jury mwely to give the
plaintiff nominal damages.

Several neighbours of the parties were called, who proved that
the plaintiff had, on the day in question, without any provoca-
tion, come to the defendant, who was standing at his door, and
insulted him in the grossest manner. He had called him a
" house-breaking son of a b—;" that " he had defrauded his
creditors of 399/4" that " he would be hanged, as his brother
was ;" and, at last, finished his harangue by putting his finger
in a most contemptuous manner in the face of the defendant.
The Loan CII lEFJusTi CE told the Jury, that it was clear
an assault had been committed; it therefore only remained for
them to decide what damages would be a sufficient compensa-
tion to the plaintiff.
The Jury immediately returned a verdict for the plaintiff:—
Damages—One Shilling.

FURIOUS DRIVING.-LOVEGROVE V. EADY.
This action was brought by a lace-manufacturer residing near
Marlow, against the proprietors of the Blackheath and Green-
wich stage, for the damage which he had sustained by the mis-
conduct of the defendant's coachman.

The accident for which the action was brought, took place on
the 10th April, in Parliament-street, Westminster. Mr. Love-
grove was driving up to Charing-cross in his gig, accompanied
by his nephew, and passing on the off-side of a coal-waggon,
when the coach of the defendant, comit', towards the bridge,
was driven in contact with it, and caused it to be overturned,
and the plaintiff thrown into the street. The nephew of the
plaintiff; and two persons who were walking along the street,
described the accident as occasioned entirely by the conduct of
the defendant's coachman, who was driving at a gallop, and
who did not deviate in the least from his course to avoid the
gig. On an application being made for compensation to the
defendant, he said that the repairs of ' the gig could not cost 15
guineas, and he would rather defend the action than pay such
a sum. The repairs cost 13/. 7s. lid. ; but 71. 7s. of this was
for new wheels, whereas those broken were old.

For the defendant, the coachman, a helper from the stables
who was on the dickey, and the foreman of Mr. Place, of
Charing-cross, who was riding on the box, deposed that the
coach had set down the passengers, and was proceeding to the
stables at a pace of not more than six miles an hour. The
coachman had no whip, but the man behind had the whip,
which the driver said he should not want. These witnesses
declared that the accident arose solely from the imprudence
of Mr. Lovegrove, in attempting to pass between two heavy
vehicles.

The SOLICITOR-GENERAL was beginning to reply on'be-
half of the plaintiff, when
The Jury intimated that they would not trouble him, and
found a verdict for the plaintiff—Damages 101.

DAVISON v. JUNES.
This was an action of debt against the 'Marshal of the King's
Bench prison, for the escape of a prisoner named Botham, in
his custody, in execution at the suit of the plaintiff, for 791.
It appeared that Mr. Botham having the benefit of the rules,
extended his excursions to Clapham Common, where he was
at the time when the bill was filed against the Marshal.
Mr. GURNEY admitted that there was no defence. The
plaintiff was exceedingly fortunate, in obtaining from the Mar-
shal what he had small chance of ever receiving from his debtor.
The Jury accordingly found a verdict for the debt claimed,
and nominafdamages.
The Court, sat till half-past five o'clock.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DE C. S.

QUESTION OF LEGITIMACY.-CURIOUS CASE.
JAS. HEAD V. MARY HEAD.

..„. . ...
Mr. Serjeant HULLOoK stated, that this. was an issue from
the Court of Chancery to determine the question of the legiti-
macy of the plaintiff, who claimed to be the son of Mr. Wm.
!lead, a master carpenter, of Lambeth. Wm. Head married, in
1795, with a young woman, named Eliz. Davies, and after living
together for about two years, some disagreement took place,
which occasioned a separation. Mrs. Head went to reside, first
at Feltham, and subsequentlyat a place called Kent House
Farm, where Mr. Thos. Randall, her uncle,,lived. In the same •
house resided Mr. James Randall, the 'son of Thos. Randall.
Mr. Head frequently called at this farm house, saw his wife,
and continued with her for nearly an hour at a time. Mrs. Head
left this farm in the latter end of 1798, and in May, 1799, was
delivered of a son, who was the plaintiff in the present case.—
The question the Jury would have to determine was, whether
the plaintiff was the legitimate son of Win. Head, or the spu-
rious offspring of an adulterous intercourse with Jas. Randall.
He should prove the marriage of the parties, and such opportu-
nity of intercourse between the husband and wife after their se.
paration, as he trusted would leave no doubt iipon the subject.
The Rector of Lambeth Church produced the registry of the
marriage between Wm. Head and Elizabeth Davies, at Lam-
beth Church, in 1795; and the Rector of Chiselliurst proved
the registry of baptism of the plaintiff, by the name of James,
son of-William and Elizabeth Head, in 17!19.
Mr. Williams knew Mr. anti Mrs. Head, the latter before
her marriage; they lived together about two years, they then
separated; witness went a short time afterward'S with Mr. Iliad
to Kent House Farm;. the front door was locked and he went
to the back ; he returned about three minutes, and witness and
he Went into the Church, where he staid about a 'quarter of
an hour; witness and Mr. Head then returned to Lambeth
together.
cross-examined.—He
_was not much acquainted with the
plaintiff% thought he was a little like old Mr. Head in features.
Mr. Jobn almsley resided at Narrow-wall, Lambeth ; he'

knew the late Mr. Head ; after his marriage he resided at Lam-
beth-marsh; he lived with his wife nearly two years after the mar-
riage; Mrs. Head then went to Feltharn ; witness saw her there;
she went from thence to Kent House in Beckenham; she resided
with Mr. Randall, her uncle, who was a fanner there, and whose
wife was Mrs. Head's aunt ; witness went to see her there
about three months after the separation ; witness believed the
cause of the separation was that Head used to go to public-
houses and generally came home tipsy; he thought there was a
likeness between the plaintiff and the late Mr. Head ; before the
late Mr. Head began drinking he was a healthy man, but he
! subsequently became a hard drinker; he believed Mrs. Head
had some private property; when witness went to the farm-
house Mrs. Head always appeared to live with the family ; Mr.:
Randall had a son who was about 26 years of age. e.
Mrs. Eliz. Greenberry, left Kent House Fairni in 1798, she
had been there as a housekeeper to Mr. Randall ; Mrs. Head
was there during the time; she had also seen Mr. William
Head there during the time ; he came there about the end of
July, or the beginning of August. 'Mrs. Head was then up-
stairs with old Mr. Randall, who was then laid up with the
gout. Witness went to inform Mrs. Head of his arrival, she
came down immediately ; this was on a Suaday ; she after- .
wards heard Mrs. Head say she had seen him but witness did
'not see them together on that occasion, as she was very busy
about the household concerns ; he came there more than once,
twice, or thrice.
Cross-examined—Witness was the sister of old Mr. Randall,
and used to manage the house with Mrs. Head; no other female
was in the house, but sometimes a woman, named Parsons,
who used to come as dcharwoman. Mrs. Head came to Kent
House Farm about the middle of 1797 ; sometimes the men.
servants used to dine in the kitchen, and sometimes in the wash-
house ; these places were not near each other.
Re-examined—The woman who assisted sometimes as char-
woman never stopped long in the house ; when witness left Kent
House Farm in October, 1798, Mrs. Head was pregnant.
The witness was cross-examined a second time on the last
question. Mrs. Head was about three months advanced in
pregnancy • witness had had children herself.
By the jUDGE—Mrs. Head slept with witness, except when
witness's husband came to the Farm,when Mrs. Head continued
in the same room, and witness went with her husband into ano-
ther; Mr. Randall and his son generally slept together; their
room was not near Mrs. Head's; never had reason to believe
that either James Randall or Mrs. Head slept out of the room
appropriated for each • never saw any improper familiarities
between him and Mrs:Head • could not remember whether she
had ever spoken to Mrs. Head concerning her pregnancy.
The birth of the plaintiff was admitted to have been on the
7th of May, 1799, and the death of old Mr. Head on the 30th
of August,. 1800.
Thomas Brown, formerly lived at Chiselhurst ; remembered
Mrs. Head coming to lodge at his house where the child war
born. Witness was one of the godfathers.
Cross-examined—A man named King was the other god-
father. Never saw old Mr. Head, nor either of the Randalls.
This closed the plaintiff's case.
Mr. Serjeant LENS addressed the Jury for the defendant.—
He first observed on the interest and importance of a subject
like the present, not only to the parties in this case, but to all
parties who claimed by birth a certain rank from which others
were unfortunately excluded by their illegitimacy. It was not
now necessary to show impossibility of access on the part of the
husband, for the old rule of law which held bare possibility
sufficient, was now considerably relaxed. Every circumstance
proved the illegitimacy of the plaintiff; for, was it likely that
a casual visit from the husband, when the parties conversed
in a kitchen, liable to the interruption of every man-servant
in the farm, should produce the pregnancy of the wife ? The
child, too, had always borne the name of Randall up to
the time when he thought it necessary, for the purpose of
the present action, to assume that of Head. Every ex-
Pence of his nursing, education, and apprenticeship, had
been defrayed by :lames Randall; and so little did old
Mr. Head know or care about his wife, that three days bes
fore his death he made a will, in which was the follow-
ing bequest :—" I leave 10/. to my wife if she is still living."
The opportunities of gratification afibrded to parties, in the
situation of James Randall and Mrs. Head were very great,
and it was not sufficient therefore for the plaintiff to shew-.
that they had never been caught in bed together, for lie ought
to have gone further, and have proved that bid' Mr. Head had
had such an intercourse with his wife as would naturally have
led to the birth of a child. The Learned Serjeant called
Ann Southall, a widow, sister to Mrs. Head, knew of the
marriage'of her sister in November, 1795. Soon after the mar-
nage her sister and Mr. Head disagreed very much, and the wife
seemed to have an aversion for him in consequence of his habits '
of drinking. When Mrs. Head left her husband she came to
witness, and then went to Feltham. She did not then appear to
be pregnant. She afterwards resided for a few weeks at Edg_
ware-road, and from thence proceeded to Kent House Farm,
where her uncle, Thomas Randall, resided ; be was about 50
years of age. She 'left Kent House Farm on .account of her
pregnancy, and went to Chiselhurst, where she was delivered.
Witness saw her once at Chiselhurst. In 1806 Mrs. Head
married James Randall. Her sister had another child born in
Mil, which was named Francis; she lived then in John-
street, Blackfriars. Witness visited her only once' there, and
when she saw James Randall come in she left the place imme-
diately. Witness knew the plaintiff until he was six years
old ; she had not seen him again until within the present year.
She did not know by what name he was described.
William Arnald, schoolmaster and parish clerk of Becken-
ham, knew the plaintiff, who came to him as a pupil in 1806,
and remained until 1810 ; he went by the name of Randall.
Witness was always paid by James Randall, whom witness
always considered as the boy's father. He used to go to Kent
House Farm for his money.
Cross-examined—A son of the last witness was at the school
now. Ile did not know whether young Southall was like the
plaintiff; he used to think the plaintiff very much like James
Randall, and had told him so.
Wm. Henry Gibbons, a miller, residing at South-end—he
had an apprentice named Randall residing with him ; witness
used to call him.Jas. Randall, and he always answered to that
name ; he remained with witness four years; he came to witness
in 1816.

Charles Jemmett, Esq. Coroner for Surrey, summoned a
Jury to hold an inquisition on the sth of .January last ; one of
the Jury was a Jas. Randall ; witness produced the inquisition
with the signatures of the different Jurymen.
Mr. Gibbons was recalled—He believed the signature in the
inquisition, "Jas. Randall." to be that of his apprentice.
The will of the late Mr. Head was then put in, by which he
gave 101. to his wife, adding " if she is still living."
Mr. Serjeant HuLLocx replied v) this evidence, and after
commenting on the absence of proof of an adulterous inter-
course, he insisted he had entitled himself to their verdict, by
shewing opportunities of intercourse between the husband and
wife, at Kent-house Farm, sufficient to raise the was
on strong grounds of probability, that the plaintiff' was the son
of Wm. Head.

Mr. Justice BURROUGH summed up the evidence to the
Jury. If they thought access had not been proved, the plaintiff
was illegitimate ; if, on the other hand, they believed that a
sufficient probability of intercourse between the husband and
wife had been shown, they must find for the plaintiff;
The Jury, after a few moments consultation, returned a ver-
dict for the plaintiff, thereby declaring his legitimacy.

SCOTCH SEQUESTRATIONS, &c.
Welsh and Dingwall, wood-merchants and joiners, Greenock,
to be examined at the Sheriff-clerk's office there, 12th and 26th
December, at 12.
Creditors of Peter Al‘Lachlan, merchant, Glasgow, meet in
the office of John Ferguson, writer there, 19th December at 12.
Creditors of Robert Steel, toll-keeper and spirit-dealer,
Tradeston, Glasgow, meet in the office of John Stewart, writer
there, 18th December, at 1.
Creditors, of the late Geo. Smith, manufacturer, Perth will
reeceivS a final dividend from the Trustee, in the Town-Cierk's
Office there, 27th December, at 11.
IS taus of the affairs of Arch. Cochran of Ashkirk, some time
a merchant in Fisherrow, lie with the Trustee.—No dividend.

Another awful instance of the carelessness of
fire happened a few days ago, in a house in Burns'-street. Leith
Links • where the mother had gone out and left some children
in the house alone, who, being uncontrolled, ignited pieces of
wood, and in carrying them through the house some of the
sparks caught the clothes of a bed, which instantly were in a
blaze ; by the exertions of the neighbours the conflagration was
extinguished without loss of lives. This is the second instance
of fire under the same roof in the space of two months ; the
former was that of a woman, who kept a tippling-house, and
who in a fit of intoxicatio was found in flames, by a spark
having caught her clothes.—(Edinburg't Courant.)