The Sun.
London, England, 1819-11-15 00:00:00

LA %.17 INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, NovEntpt/t 13.

ILLEGITIMATE CHILD.

•EAGES6OMM IL ssuGessoN.

This extraordinary case again occupied the at-
tention of the Court, which was crowded to ex-
cess. We formerly detailed the facts of the case,
and the following abstract may therefore suffice :
It was an application by. the plaintiff to the
Court, praying that the annual allowance of three
hundred pounds to the defendant might be sus-
pended, and that an issue might he direCted for
the purpose of trying whether she was the le-
gitimate child of the late Colonel Sergesson.—
The plaintiff having married the Colonel's sister,
assumed the name of Sergesson, and took the fa-
mily estates. The defendant is a child of 13 years
of age, anti being entitled to the personal estate
of her.deceased grandmother, and other property,
in value nearly 20,0001., she was made a ward of
the Court, and the 3001. a year allow id her for her
education and support. In :consequence 91 the
plaintiff having received various accounts respect-
ing the child being a suppositious child, be went
to Dublin, where he collected a number of afiida-
♦its, stating the manner in which the child had
been palmed on the Colonel as his own. These
he. submitted to the Court, and applied to have an
issue to try the question of the legitimacy.
Meters. HAT: and FASEAR, at great length,
*stated the case on behalf of the plaintiff.
Mr. WINGFIELD appeared as Counsel on the
part of Miss Sergesson. It was his duty, he said,
entrusted as he was- with the interest of this
young Lady, to resist the application, sad to de-
monstrate that it was founded in perfidy, and
false sWearing, and mixed up with circumstances
to which no credit whatever Ought to be attached;
and sure he was, when his Lordship looked at the
evidence, be would not grant the application.

Mr. COMBE followed On the same side.

Mr.-HART replied.
The Loan CHANCELLOR, after going over the
statements in the affidavits, remarked, that he
thought it would nor be for the interest of the
young lady that the question of her legitimacy
should be delayed being tried in an issue till the
hearing of this cause. There were four or five
rersons capable of being produced as evidence of
erillegitimacy—..it was true that ail of them would
have to give evidence of their own infamy. They
were credible witnesses, if the Jury should not think
the infamy of the transaction bore doWn their testi-
mony. What might have been the effects of their
testimony without the explanation of Mrs. Sergcs-
ion herself he would not say ; but the event of Mrs.
Sergesson's death before the investigation of the
testimony of such witnesses, might be attended
with serious Consequences. He was_ therefore of
opinion, upon the whole, that he ought to direct
the issue for the purpose of detetmining this mo-
tion j but he would not stop the young lady's al-
lowance. His Lordship accordingly directed the
issue, to try whether Miss Sergesson was the le-
gitimate daughter of Colonel Sergesson and his
wife. His Lordship ordered the trial to take
place in the King's Bench, Westtninster, the 'Sit-
tings after next term.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, Not•. 38.

ELECTION BRIBERY.
[Further Particulars.]

THE ICING V. SIR MANASSEH M. LoPEZ, BART. ♦ND

SEVERAL OTHERS.

The defendant, Sir Manasseh Massey Lopez,
Bart. it will be recollected, was convicted at the
last Spring Assizes for the Counties of Cornwall
and Devon, upon an indictment in each County,
for corruptly bribing certain freemen of the Bo-
rough of Grampound, to vote on his behalf at the
last General Election for Members to serve in
Parliament for that Borough ; and that the fol-
lowing persons were also convicted at the last
mentioned Assizes, upon indictments charging
them with having been corrupted, and having
received bribes to vote as freemen at the said
lection on behalf of Sir M. Lopez, viz. :—Wm.
Allen, John Brown, Francis Brown, sen. Francis
)3rown, jut). Wm. Porteus, Robert Cook. James
Cow, Thomas Devonshire, John Hand, George
Hand, IVilliam Baker Johns, Edward Luke,
Philip Luke, William M'Carrol, Edward Painter,
George Watts, William Court is, William Tweed,
Thomas Courtis, Isaac Watts, James Crowle,
and Thomas Trotter. The indictments against
these defendants charged William Allen, an Al-
derman of Grampound, with receiving a colour-
able loan of 501. from Sir M. M. Lopez,
,or his
agent, George Hunt, for his vote ; and the other
defendants with receiving from the same parties a
similar loan of 351. each, for the like purpose.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL now prayed the lodg-
ment of the Court upon all the defendants, and they
were accordingly all placed upon the floor, with
the exception of Robert Cook, and two others,
who were unable to attend on account of ill-
baalth or infirmity.
Mr. HUTCHINSON appeared for Robert Cook,
and produced an affidavit, accounting for his ab-
sence, the reason assigned for which was extreme
old age and infirmity.
The ATTORNEY-GENERAL consented to post-
pone the motion against the absentees for the

present.
. Mr. Justice HOLROYD then proceeded to read
his Report of the case against Sir M.. M.l.opez,
which was tried before his Lordship it Cornwall.
This was followed by Mr. Justice Best's Report
of the other case against Sir M.- At Lopez, and
those against the .other- defendants, tried- before
his Lordship in Devonshire. At the .trial of
the first oase against Sir-:•M, .M:. Lopez,. -in
question %vas raised whether. the of-
fence was committed in tiwoc6.llo4o,**Til
NV as left. to the. Jury, and. thef:,foo,3 af,
tirmative._-When the Learned StrdAtAratiConte-to
this part dthe Report,:. •• •
Mr. .t.CARLETT, as Counsel for Sir Matthew
Lopez, interposed, and said, that be had told his
,client,he should mention,this point to the Court
,when be was. brought up for judgment, fur the
.purpose of raising the question whether a verdict
of acquittil should not • be entered, persuading
himself that (he Court would' give the full
benefit of the objection, if it was 'available, not-