The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-18 00:00:00

SUMMER ASSIZES.

WESTERN CIRCUIT.-BODMIN, AUG. 15.
FALMOUTH TITHES.
WILBRAHAM V. ARTHUR.

This was an action brought by the plaintiff, the
Rev. John Watkins Wilbraham, against the defend-
ant, who was an inhabitant of Falmouth, to recover
certain tithes for which he was assessed by the Cor-
poration of Falmouth for the use of the plaintiff;
who was rector of that town. There were 36 pleas
by the defendant, to meet as many counts in the de-
claration, but the whole question hinged upon a
boundary line, which was said to limit the ecclesias-
tical jurisdiction of Falmouth, as distinct from adja-
cent parishes. It appeared that in the reign of
Charles 11., and by consent of the Bishop of Exeter,
who is patron of the living of Falmouth, a new ec-
clesiastical jurisdiction was defined, for the purpose
of making the town a distinct place from the parish
in which it was situaiad,as .well. as from an adjacent
chapelry of great antiquity. And it was on that
occasion stipulated that an
,assessment of ls. 4d. in
the pound should be made by the Corporation for
the rector's tithes, for Falmouth town and " pre-
cincts.", Falmouth originally consisted of ten houses,
but had increased to 200 in Charles ll.'s time, when
it was separated, to use the language of the law,
from " the Mother Church," and made subject to a
particular arrangement for the payment of tithes, dis-
tinct from those of the parish and chapelry. A ver-
dict was taken for the plaintiff, subject to a question
of law for the consideration of the court above.

The mining cases bai,e been all withdrawn. The
assizes will terminate for this county to-morrow.

OXFORD CIRCUIT.—SHREWSBURY, Ana. 16.
MORRIS V. DAVIES AND WIFE.
(Concluded from our Paper of yesterday.)

On Mr. Baron Vaughan taking his seat this morn-
ing at eight o'clock,
Mr. CAMPBELL addressed his Lordship, and stated
that in consequence of the dispersion of counsel in
this cause yesterday, to attend in the other court,
and the sudden illness of Mr. Sergeant Peake, the
examination of two important witnesses had been
omitted: their testimony would be very short, and
he had to request his Lordship would now allow
them to be examined.

Mr. Baron VAUGHAN thought they should be ex-
amined, as it was their bonnden duty to obtain all
the information possible on such an important ques-
tion.

The following witnesses were then called, and
examined by Mr. Campbell, for the defendants.
Margaret Jones (examined by the medium of an
interpreter) said—l now keep the Cross Keys at
Glanfillan. I formerly lived with Mrs. Lloyd, of
Garthllwyd, as housemaid. I made the beds. I
knew Mrs. Morris : she sometimes ' came to
Garthllwyd on a visit in the evening, but never slept
there to my recollection. I always conducted the
ladies who slept there to their bed-rooms. No
gentleman ever came with Mrs. Morris while I was
there. Mary Jones succeeded me when I left Mrs.
Lloyd. I left 31 years ago last May. I was there
seven years.

Cross-examined.—Mr. Lloyd died a good many
years after I left. .Mr. and Mrs. Lloyd kept. a good
deal of company, and I don't pretend to recollect all
that came to the house.

Re-examined.—l never beard of Mr. Morris's name.

Mary Jones—l succeeded the last witness at
Garthllwyd. I remained there eight years. I saw
Mr. Morris, of Argoed, there once; Mrs. Morris
was with him; they came to dinner. That is 28 or
29 years ago. They slept there that night in sepa-
rate rooms ; there was a large passage between the
two. I conducted Mrs. Morris to her chamber;
Mrs. Morris's daughter was with her mother, and
slept with her.
Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL now rose to .address the
jury in reply, and commenced by observing' that he
should not have last night delayed them by request-
ing an adjournment of this cause, could it have been
then disposed of, but as by the rule for trial of issues
out of the Court of Chancery, the whole of the evi-
dence must be summed up by the learned Judge, he
trusted that they would not consider that he had in-
truded on their time unnecessarily. This was a
most important cause—important not only in respect
to the interests of his client, but generally important
as regarded the law of inheritance. For he (Mr.
Sergeant Russell) did not hesitate to state distinctly
that if his client should be decided to be not entitled
to inherit, the law of England would be from that
moment altered. Before he proceeded further, he
would endeavour to set himself right with the
jury on the imputation that his Learned Friend
had cast on him respecting the collateral evi-
dence which it was asserted he had intro-
duced solely for the purpose of creating a preju-
dice against the defendants, when he taxed them
with the concealment of witnesses and subornation
of testimony. If he had neglected to show that the
delays in the trial of this cause had been occasioned
by the defendants, his Learned Friend would have
asked him why they came here to try in 1827 what
they should have tried in 1810. His Learned
Friend had felt the great weight of this part of the
case, by endeavouring to ascribe the conduct of the
defendants in keeping that important witness out of
the way to ignorant people; but what would the
jury think of their ignorance when it was shown
that they acted by the direction of the defendant,
Davies, who had long been, and now was, an at-
torney;
contemplatedbut that e
ving a ddevfaenntdaagnet sfr
oh
ma d
tdheel i baebrstietnecl ye
of that witness, and had received the advantage of
it for lb years, was beyond all doubt. One great
object of the delay was to prevent this cause from
coming to trial during the life-time of Mr. Lloyd, of
Garthliwydd ; and in that the defendants had succeed-
ed, for he was now dead, or this cause would not have
stood before them for a single moment. And again, if
that important and respectable witness, Mrs. Lloyd,
had been examined l 5 years ago, would she not have
been able to give more and ,better evidence than
she now had ? His Learned Friend had endea-
voured to excite the pity of the jury by dwelling on
the large family of the defendants; but he (Mr. Ser-
geant R.) thought, if the case was to be decided on
such grounds, he should be able to excite their pity,
if he detailed the cruelty and difficulties which his
client had been exposed to froin his birth up to this
moment, in trying to establish his just rights; but he
should wrong the jury if he laid before them such
topics, well knowing that their verdict would be di-
rected by the laws of their country, and without
reference to the situation of any particular family.
The Learned Counsel, after remarking on the adroit
way in which his Learned Friend had conducted the
case of the defendants, said, that he did not object
to the principle, of law laid down by his Learned
Friend. If, on the evidence, the jury thought that
any sexual intercourse took place between Mr.
Morris and his wife, when, according to the course
of nature, he might be the father of the child, then
there must be an end of the case. All the adultery
would signify nothing, and they must find the
plaintiff to be the legitimate son of Mr. Morris. The
law went still further : supposing that on the facts
of the case the jury thought there was no proof of
actual sexual intercourse ; still, if there was oppor-
tunity of intercourse, the law presumed it to have
taken place, until the opposite party rebutted that
presumption. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to remark on the impossibility of accounting for the