The Sun.
London, England, 1827-08-17 00:00:00

OXFORD CIRCUIT.-SIIREtSBURY, AVG. 15.

moants v. DAVIE:; AND WIVE.
(Continued from our Paper of yesterday.)
This morningat eight o'clock, Mr. BaronVAtxmAN
took hiu seat in Court. The case on the part of the
plaintiff having been .clAsed last night,
Mr. TAUNTON, in cqmmenciag his address to the
jury on the part of the defendants, said, the question
they had to try was, whether the plaintiff was the
legitimate child of William and Mary Morris. Now
ire would suppose that Mrs. Morris, the unfortunate
lady wli:4e Conduct occasioned the present trial, had
been guilty of improper conduct in endeavouring to
keep out of the way Ann Evans, a witners in this
cause (though he would not admit she had done so)
but he would suppose that Mrs. Morris and even
Mrs. Davies bad been guilty of tampering with her,
—ll3 would suppose all, and would then ask what
had that to do with tile question they had to try ?
Did it follow because they had misconducted them-
selves in the proceedipgs in the Court of Chancery,
that Mrs. D. was not the heir-at-law 'to 'her father,
or from any thing that had been said by thoe ii;it-
nesses, that the plaintiff was the legitimate child of
Mr. and Mrs. Morris ? lie would ask, then, for
what purpose was the time of the Court wasted (he
usedfi,e word advisedly) wasted, with what took place
in' the CoUrt of Chancery, but for the purpose of
creating a prejudice in the 'minds of the Jury against
the defendants, and obtaining a verdict on that pre-
judice? Mr.and Mrs. D. were not the only parties in-

terested in this ease. They had a numerous family
of ten children. Mr. and Mrs. Davies had lived
some time in the world, the best part of their life
was run out ; but they had children starting into
life, the estate in question was their inheritance, and
if the Jury found a verdict against the defendants,
they would not only consign theth to poverty fur
the rest of their life, but reduce their innocent
children to beggary. In stating this, he (Mr. Taun-
ton), was not speaking without his host, because the
estate was settled on the children of the defendants;
they had enjoyed it since 1810. Airs. Davies bad
been brought up all her life in expectation of enjoy-
ing it ; and if they by their verdict destroyed that
settlement, and took this property from her, they
would take away that, the hope of possessing which
had been her brightest prospect in life. He would
now proceed to detail the real facts of the case, on
which their verdict must be founded. His Learned
Friend had only stated so much as suited the
interests of his client, leaving the Jury in the
dark with respect to the rest. His Learned
Friend's argument was, that this Mr. and Mrs.
Morris being man and wife, she was delivered of
a child, which child was the plaintiff, and the plain.
tiff was therefore entitled to inherit the property
of Mr. Morris. With respect to the presumption
of law on which this claim was founded—a pre-
sumption which be (Mr. Taunton) admitted—he
should presently call the attention of the Jury to
the subject. The Learned Counsel then proceeded
to state the marriage of Mr. and Mrs. Morris ; that
in 1778, and for several years, Mr. Morris continued
to practise in this town as a surgeon and man-mid-
wife,
which rendered him unlikely to mistake the
appearance of a woman within six weeks of her con-
finement. On that marriage the property now in
question was settled ; and it was not unimportant
to know that it was settled on the male issue of that
marriage; and it was, therefore, to a man in the
situation of Mr. Morris, a matter of no mean consi-
deration that he should have a son to inherit and
enjoy that property. Nothing could be more grati-
fying to him to know than that he had a son. In
1781 Mrs. Davies was born, and in the course of
some few years after, some differences arose between
Mr. and Mrs. Morris. How those differences were
engendered he (Mr. Taunton) should leave the Jury
to judge. His Learned Friend had represented
them as the effect of chance; but he (Mr. Taun-
ton) should show that in the year 1780 a person ofl
the name of William Austin entered the service of
Mr. and Mrs. Morris, and that he had not been long
there before differences, which never before arose,
took place. In consequence of those differences
Mr. and Mrs. Morris separated, and a deed of sepa-
ration, to which he should have occasion to refer,
was executed. But before Mrs. Morris went she
took care- to take William Austin with her, and he
continued to live with her at Llanfair, more like a
master than a servant, until (by means which the
Jury could imagine) a commission was purchased,
and he became an officer in his Majesty's service. '
He (Mr. Taunton) did not wish to say any thing
against him; for, bating his criminal connection with
hie mistress, he believed by the kindly and affec-
tionate feelings that be had evinced for his son,
the present plaintiff; he must have been a good
kind of man. That this William Austin had lived
in adulterous intercourse with Mrs. Morris openly as
the master of the house, that he hunted, sported,
had horses kept for him, and that the plaintiff was
the offspring of that adulterous intercouse, he (Mr.
Taunton) should prove so 'amply as not to leave a
doubt in the minds of the jury. And when he had
satisfied therm upon that head, he could assure them
that there was nothing in the law of England so pre-
posterous and unjust as to force them to give a
verdict in spite of their conviction and against their
consciences. When Mrs. Morris was, in De-
cember, 1792, delivered of the plaintiff; the
son of Austin, with whom she had some years
before been living, they had it in evidence that the
most anxious care was taken to keep Mr. Morris in
ignorance of the birth of the child. That this child
was taken away at that inclement season of the year
at night, and conveyed a distance of 30 miles, to be
deposited with Austin's mother, he (Mr- Taar.ton)
should prove, that instead of being baptized as the
son of Wm. Morris, Esq., this child was baptized by
the name of Evan Williams, and with this addition,
" a base child." He was brought up by Austin's
father, and treated by William Austin as his child,
feelings that on such an occasion spoke volumes. He
acknowledged him as his son, addressed him as his
dear boy, paid for his schooling; and when Captain
Austin went abroad (looking forward to an event
which befel many of our gallant soldiers who went
out to the West Indies), be made his will, and be-
queathed to the plaintiff all thA he had in the world.
It was the misfortune of Wm. Austin not to be pos-
sessed of much property—it did not exceed 1004
But it was fortunate for this plaintiff that he was
blessed with two fathers; he seemed to have a double
inheritance; for having got all that Captain Austin,
his real father, could give him, he now comes forward
to get all that Mr. Morris died seized of. The Learn-
ed Counsel, after contending that the way in which
Austin had treated the plaintiff proved to demonstra-
tion that be had considered bins as his son, went on
to state, that as Mr. Morris was living at Argoed, it
was impoisible for him to say that there was no ac-
cess ; but he was strong enough in this case to submit
to the jury, that if Mr. Morris had been living in
Llanfair,—nay, in the same house with Mrs. Morris,
any thing even short of going into the same bed
with her, the same consequence would take place
that he contended ought to take place now. He
,would show, by every act of Mr. Morris's life, that
he knew nothing of the birth of this child. In 1799
his daughter married Mr. Davies ; he was very much
offended at it, and in the anguish of a disappointed
father, lie taxed him with having robbed hitn
of his only child. Would he have done that ifshe
had had a son ? Would he not have taken refuge
in time company of that son who hail never offended
him, because he had never seen him. Would he
not have flown to that son—have brought him home,
and educated him in a way worthy to succeed to his
ancient patrimony ? What was his conduct ? Why
he made his will, disinheriting his daughter, and
leaving all his property to a nepheW of his, called
\Via. Morris. This was in 1799, when this boy
must have been seven years old, an age when be
could not have offended his father. At this period
a temporary reconciliation took place between Mr.
and Mrs. Morris. She returned, and resided with
him for a short time, till he became reconciled to his
daughter. On that taking place, Mrs. Morris re-
turned to her residence at Llanfair. He (Mr. Taun-
ton) should prove a declaration of Mr. Morris, about
that period, taken with regard to the enclosure of
seine property, in which he was interested, where
he declared his daughter, Harriot, now Mrs. Davies,
to be his only child and heir. In 1808 be made a
second will, giving to her all his property. At that
time the plainsifi 16 years of age, and in 1810
Mr. Morris died, the plaintiff never having, durieg
his life, done one single act towards asserting his
birth-right, which he now complains he is deprived
of by the usurpation of Mrs. Davies. He (Mr.
Taunton) defied any man to assign any sufficient
reason for the concealment of the plaintiff's birth, if
he had been the son of Mr. Morris. His Learned
Friend had said that Mrs. Morris concealed the birth
because she did not wish to go and reside with her
husband again ; but comild the Jury suppose Mrs.
Moiris3s taste Was so depraves ste to glory irm living
in infamy with Austin ?. The witnesses foe the plain-
tiff all proved that Mr. and Mrs. Morris were most
agreeable and welcome to each other; that they were
happy together. Yet this was the woman who did not
wish to go and live with her husband. The learned
Counsel here proceeded to observe, that he should
produce the [nest cogent evidence, in the hand-
writing of the Plaietiffilimself, of. the way in which
he was brought into the world, and of which lie
speaks of Austin being his father, and that, so late
as 1820, when the plaintiff was 28 years of age.
Ile knew that sonic remarks would be made about
the way in which the pocket-book containing that
entry had been obtained, but that was not a question
for thesis now to decide : he knew that it would be
said that that entry contained nothing ilut an ac-

count that the plaintiff had received from Ann
Evans ; but the plaintiff would not have put it
down if he had not believed it, and it was important
as coining from Ann Evans, the person most likely
to know who the real father was. The jury had
heard that Mr. Morris had reason to suspect the
.adulterons intercourse carried on between his wife
and William Austin. If she was conscious of having
that connexion with her husband that the witnesses
had endeavoured to have inferred, would not Mrs.
Morris have urged her pregnancy to her husband as
the best proof of her innocence with Austin ? Would
she not have said, "Here I have been slandered, and
accused of a criminal intercourse with Austin for
years ; yet the moment you visit me I am with
child ?" But the witnesses for the plaintiff proved
too -fnuch. They actually bring Mr. and Mrs.
Morris together, and put them into the same bed
when she was within six weeks of her delivery ;
and yet it is asserted that she wished to conceal the
birth of this child from him. The Learned Counsel
here took u review of the evidence for the plaintiff;
and pointed out the contradictions and falsehoods
which he should prove the witnesses had been guilty
of. The jury, he presumed, were satisfied, from
the observations he had made, that the plaintiff
was not the real son of Mr. Morris. His Learned
Friend said, that might be so, yet they must believe
him the legitimate son of William and Mary
Morris, though not the real son. He (Mr. Taunton)
denied that. For a short period a rule of law
had existed, invented by the subtilty of lawyers,
that if a husband was within the kingdom, a child
born of his wife must be legitimate. But that was
the ancient law of the land, it was an interpolation,
introduced at a time when subtilty gained the as-
cendancy over common sense and justice. Bracton
said that the presumption in favour of legitimacy
must stand till the contrary was proved; the con-
trary therefore might be proved, and there were
many cases affording such proof. And he (Mr.
Taunton) took the law to be this, and he laid it down
on authority higher than his own—" That if sexual
intercourse be proved between a husband and wife,
the offspring must be legitimate; and where there
was a possibility of intercourse with two different
men, the law would ascribe the offspring to the hus-
band, rather than the stranger." So, also, it would
be without actual proof of intercourse, if opportunity
of intercourse could be proved, unless it be shown
that that opportunity was not taken advantage of.—
In this case, it was impossible to say that no oppor-
tunity of intercourse subsisted ; but the presumption
that the law made might be rebutted by facts and cir-
cumstances, to satisfy the jury ,on the whole review of
the case, that it did not take place, not that it could
not take place. Iu order to rebut the presumption
of law, he (Mr. Taunton) relied on the plain and un-
equivocal facts of the case, on the concealment of
the birth of the child, of the ignorance of Mr. Morris
of its existence, and on the fact of Austin, the real
father of the child, having provided for it.

The Rev. John Bright produced the marriage-
settlement between Mr. and Mrs. Morris, dated the
17th of April, 1778, bywhich it appeared an annuity
of 2004 per annum was secured to her on his
death, and the estate limited to the first and other
sons, issue of the marriage.
Mr. Francis Allen, an attorney, of Welchpool,
produced a deed of separation between Mr. and
Mrs. Morris, dated the 22d of May, 1788, reciting
that differences had arisen. The property settled
on Mrs. Morris by this deed was valued at 4001.
per annum.

Mr. R. Harris, from Doctors'-commons, produced
the will of the late Mr. Morris, disposing of all his
property to his nephew ; and also a subsequent will,
dated December, 1808, in which the testator descri-
bed Mrs. Davies, the wife of the defendant, as his
only child, and bequeathed to her all his property.
Mr. Francis Allen being recalled, stated that he
was employed by the testator to make his last will in
1808, and that in giving him directions for that pur-
pose the testator said that by his marriage settle-
ment the property Ncas settled on hii male issue, but
that he had none.

Mr.. Baron VAuGHAN baying expressed a wish
to put another titielitton to :rare. ILaoyd, who was
examined yesterday,
Mr. Whately now informed his Lordship, that
Mrs. Lloyd, of Garthllyd, was in attendance.
On her examination by Mr. Baron VAUGHAN,
she stated she never remembered meeting Mr. Morris
at Mrs. Morris's at dinner, in company with Dr.
Price and her husband. Mrs. Morris and her hus-
band were very intimate, and the witness was fre-
quently in the habit of visiting Mrs. Morris in com-
pany with her husband.
Mr. William Morris.—l am the nephew men-
tioned in the will of 1799. I remember Mr. Morris's
death, and attended the funeral.

Mrs. C. Monis, widow of Mr. Philip Morris,
brother of Mr. William Morris; Richard Reece,
who lived with Mr. Morris at Argoed, as wagener,
in 1790; and Mr. Richard Bennett, who lived with
Air. Morris for twelve years from 1791, never heard
of his having a son.

Edward Nicholls remembered being at Argoed,
when he overheard a conversation between Mr. and
Mrs. Morris : when he accused her of having had a
child she denied it, and said she had never had any
but Harriet, the defendant's wife. She wished the
devil might take her of the earth if she had.
Mr. Baxter, a surgeon at Montgomery, knew Mr.
Morris in 1781, Mr. Morris was surgeon to the in-
firmary ; he was in practice as a surgeon and mid-
wife in 1792; I attended Mr. Morris professionally,
and during the last five years saw him two or three
times a week; he was in a very bad state of health.
I never knew of his having a son ; there was a re-
port that there was a son of Mr. Morris; which I
mentioned to him; I received a letter on the sth or
Gth of August, 1808, from Mrs. Morris, enclosing
one to Mr Morris ; I took it, and told him I had a
letter for him ; he refused at first to receive it;
read it to him, and threw it in the fire. I stayed
with him above an hour; I said, I understood that
he had a son, he declared he never had; he knew
nothing of Mrs. Morris having a son.
Cross-examined.—Mr. Morris's health was very
good when he first went to Argoed; Mrs. Morris
was a very fine woman.
The deposition of another witness was then read,
relating an occurrence of Mr. Austin laying down on
the same hed with the deponent and Mrs. Morris
for several hours ; that she believed nothing criminal
took place between them, and that she had seen
Mrs. Morris go down upon her knees, and heard her
declare that she had never known any man but her
husband Mr. Morris.

Thomas Coffey lived with Mrs. Morris at
Llanfair ; he knew -William Austin ; he hired wit-
ness. Austin took his meals with his mistress; he
usually dined in the kitchen ; I have seen him con-
tinually at dinner with his mistress. He slept in
the best room. He kept his clothes in mistresss
wardrobe. The witness and the other servants
called Austin, Master William. He kept 10 or 11
dogs—greyhounds, terriers, pointers, and all sorts.
He went coursing and shooting with these dogs.
He rode mistress's mare. I know the plaintiff; he
is as like Austin as two candles can be.

Cross-examined by Mr. WHATELY.—What, is he
like this gentlemanj—(piointing to a gentleman who
was standing up.)

The ,!-tritifcs; takh4 it for granted that the gentle.
man iylAo stood up was the plaintiff, said, " Yes."
It turned out that he was not the plaintiff, which
excited great laughter. The witness then on a se-
cond attempt pointed out the plaintiff.
Mary Latham.—l am 54 or 55 years old ; I
lived with Mrsc Morris at Llanfair : I went. Owe in
December 1790, and ief the latter end Of August
179 V. William' Austin lived there : he slept in the
best bed-room; Mrs. Morris called Austin sometimes
Mr. William; sometimes " Billy ;" he had a good
head of hair ; and Mrs. Morris took great pains
with it; -she used to comb it twice a, week, and tied
it up in three plats ; she took care of his linen also.
In consequence of two ladies sleeping there, some
changes of the beds took place ; I went up stairs to
ask if Mrs. Morris wanted any thing in the morning,
and I found William Austin in bed with her,. Jaw

Mrs. Morris when she was very large in the family
way a short time before Christmas.
The deposition of James Wilding was then read,
stating that he kept a school at High Ercombe, that
the plaintiff was brought there when about ten years
of age, by Wm. Austin, and introduced by the name
of Evan Williams. The deponent did not know
who paid for his schooling ; the money was always
sent by means of a lady in the neighbourhood ; the
plaintiff said Mrs. Moms was his mother ; that was
after she had cast him off. The plaintiff remained
at the deponent's school for a year and a half with-
out payment. On sending the bill to Mrs. Morris,
she replied in a very trimming letter, refusing pay-
ment, and saying she might as well pay for Austin's
children at Manchester.
The Rev. Richard Walker, curate of Wein for 35
years, produced the register of the baptisms at Wern,
and read the following entry :
" Evan Williams, a base child, was baptized Jan.
11, 1793."
Then followed a note by the rector to the follow-
ing effect :—" Supposed of Austin's, a weaver of
this town, son.",

The plaintiff was at my school; he was sent to
school by old Austin, his supposed grandfather; he
entered the school by the name of Evan Austin. Old
Austin paid for his schooling till he left. Some
people called him Evan Williams. I knew old Aus-
tin and his wife ; they were in very low circum-
stances ; she survived him four years; and I gave
her many a shilling, which she received with thank-
fulness.

Mrs. Tong.—My maiden name was Kearswell; I
have been married two years; I first saw the plain-
tiff, in 1805, at Captain Austin's house, at Wein ;
his father and mother lived with him while I was
there, the plaintiff was brought home from Erioll
scholl; he came home to see Captain Austin before
he went abroad; Captain Austin brought him into
the parlour; he saw Evan go up and kiss these two
ladies; the other lady was Mrs. Morris; I remained
at Captain Austin's some weeks; the plaintiff called
Captain Austin " Sir," and c-c Captain ;" Captain
Austin was fond of him ; Austin gave me some di-
rections.about what was to be done with the plain-
tiff when he went abroad; he said he was uneasy
about leaving him, and made me promise that he
should always spend his holidays at my father's ;
witnessed Captain Austin's will: it was made at
Wem.

The will of Captain Austin, of the 90th, Foot,
was then read, bequeathing all his property to the
plaintiff.
A letter, in the hand-writing of the plaintiff, ad-
dressed to the witness Mrs. Tong, calling Captain
Austin his father, and inquiring about him, was then
put in and read.
Mrs. Tong re-called, and proved the hand-writing
in a pocket-book now produced to be the plaintiff's.
Mrs. Paine, of Oswestry—My husband is a shoe-
maker. Mrs. Mary Evans, who was examined yes-
terday in Court, rented a house next door to us. It
is about four years ago since she left. She has said
to me several times, that if the plaintiff gained his
cause she was to have 60/. a year for life. When
she came from London, I asked her who she was
for, she said she should be for young Austin. She
always called him young Austin to me. She told
me that Mrs. Morris had a child by Austin, after she
parted from Mr. Morris. My son -Richard was pre-
sent when Mrs. Evans told me she was to have 60/.
per annum.
Richard Paine, jun.—l am son-in-law of the last
witness, and remember Mary Evans living at Os-
westry. I heard her say that if Austin got the
trial, she should baVe 60/. per annum for life.

A great number of other -witnesses were examined,
but they only proved the same facts.
The defendant's case being closed,
Mr. Sergeant RUSSELL now called the following
witnesses to contradict the assertion that the plaintiff
was like William Austin.

Lieutenant Charles Prince •said he knew Capt.
Austin well; the plaintiff is not at all like Captain
Austin.

Mr. George Walmsley.,—l knew the late Captain
Austin, and Mr. Morris, tne-pi.intstr ht this action ;
' there is not the slightest resemblance between them.
Joh►► Charles Tucker Stewart, Esq.—l am on
the half-pay of the army. I knew the late Captain
Austin, and served in the same regiment with him.
I knew him intimately; he was a subaltern in my
company; I saw Mr. Morris, the plaintiff in this
action, at the last trial ; I was then on the Special
Jury ; there is not the least resemblance between
Captain Austin and the plaintiff; I saw Capt. Aus-
tin last in 1795.

Mr. TAUNTON having replied on this evidence,
the Court adjourned till eight o'clock to-morrow
morning.
During Mr. Taunton's speech, Mr. Sergeant
Peake, who was with him for the defence, fainted
from the excessive heat of the Court; he subse-
quently returned, and resumed his professional duties.
It was observed that a sinfilar accident happened. to
him in this very Court some years ago.