Star.
London, England, 1822-12-07 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF KING'S BENCH, DECEMBER 6.
COOPER V. LEE.

This was an action against the defenant, an t-
torney, practising. at Witney, in Oxfordshire, for a
libel. The declaration set forth, that the plaintiff
was clerk to Mr. Smith, solicitor at Witney, at a sa-
lary of two guineas a week, where the defendant
published a hand-bill, headed " Conspiracy," and
co.:ched in the following terms :
" Notice is hereby given, that on the 20th day of May,1320,
at the General Session of Oyer and Terminer for the County of
Middlesex, held at the Sessions House in Clerkenwell, in the
said county, William Cooper, late of the parish of St. Andrew,
Holborn, in the county of Middlesex, gentleman, but now a
clerk in the office of John Smith, of Witney and Chipping Nor-
ton, in the county of Oxford, attorney at laW; and one Edmund
flay, were, according to due furm of law, tried, and convicted
on an indictment against them for a certain conspiracy, in un-
lawfully and wickedly conspiring and agreeing together, .with
divers other evil-disposed persons unknown, by divers false pre-
tences and representations, and by divers false, artful, and subtle
devices, stratagems, and contrivances, to obtain of and from one
T.tomas Harrison, divers deeds, hills of exchange, and securities
for money, value 6001. and to cheat and defraud him thereof."
n consequence of the publication of this handbill,
Mr. Smith discharged Mr. Cooper from his service.,
To this the defendant pleaded that he was not guilty
of publishing the libel, and also pleas of justification,
settin,; forth A record of conviction of Wm. Cooper
at the Clerkenwell Sessions, and averring that the
William Cooper was the plaintiff.
Mr. GURNEY, with whom was Mr. COOPER, having
shortly opened the case, called Mr. Edgington, a so-
licitor at Witney, who proved that he received a copy
of the hand-bill, directed in the hand-writing of Mr.
Lee. Mr. Smith, of Witney, proved the averment in
the declaration, that the plaintiff was in his service,
and was dismissed in consequence of the hand-bill.
Ile admitted, however, tint he had talked of parting
with him becaL,se he was a sharp practitioner, and
therefore not agreeable to his clients.
Mr. SCARLETT, with whom was Mr. EYKYW, for
the defence, said that he should prove that the hand-
bill was perfectly true, by producing the record of
the conviction, and sliewing the identity of the plain-
tiff with the patty convicted. In his judgment, Mr.
Lee had performed a laudable act, in diffusing the
knowledge of a fact which would protect the public
from the mischief of AN unworthy practitioner of the
law, and an honourable profession from the disgrace
which it received from the intrusion of dishonourable
members.

The record of conviction of William Cooper and
Edmund May at the Clerkenwell Sessions, for the
conspiracy alluded to in the hand-bill, was proved in
the usual form. It was also shewn that the plaintiff
was the party convicted; that the case stood over till
the next Session for the judgment, during which
time he was in prison ; and that ultimately he was
sentenced to a further imprisonment for three days.
The LORD CtilEr JusTicz.—The plea is certainly
established.

Mr. (3 u NEY .-If your Lordship thinks that a pub-
licat:on in this manner can be justified—
The Lout) Cll EV JUSTICE.—I say.nothing of what
might be done in another form of proceeding. All
I say is, that the plea is supported.

Mr. Gni:SLY elected to be nonsuited.
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DECEMBER 5.
QUEaTION OF LEGIII3I4,CY.—CUSIOUS CAM

JAMES DEAD v. MARY DEAD.

Mr. ABRA II AM S opened the pleadings, and
Mr. Setjeant Hut.LocK followed on the same side.
The question for the Jury to decide was, whether the
plaintiff was tile legitimate son of Mary Head, the
defendant. The father and mother married in 1795.
William was a carpenter, and died at Lambeth
Marsh. It appeared that William Head was addicted
to drinking, and his wife left her husband's house,
and went to reside at Kent Farm, Beckenham ; she
had a small annuity, in her own right. This took
place in 1795; and all children born in wedlock are
legitimate, unless it can he satisfactorily proved to
the contrary that there was an absence of intercourse
between the husband and w;f.;. At one period of
the law of this country, if a person were beyond the
King's dominions, by that law issue of the wife was
bastardized. The ancient law was, that it was im-
possible for a man to be the father of the child, where
it could be shewn that he had not been within the
King's dominions for a long period of tille ; but in
this case it would he proved that the husband had
visited his wife, whose residei.ce was only eight miles
distant from that of her husband.

Mr.ltickarby produced the register of marriage
between Mary Head and \'‘' Head, at Lambeth.

- .
John Phillips.—knew )Ir. and Mrs. Head when they lived
together ; it was 42 years ago ; bad known Mr. Head previously
to his marriage; he was a master carpenter and builder; bad
s •en Miss Davis befLi e her marriage; visited them afterwards;
stir was about 13 or tio years of age; can't say how long they
lived at Lambeth ; recollect, their separating, from the report
of Mr. Head; she removed to Kent House Farm ; don't know
what led to their separation ; went to his funeral ; he died in
Lambeth Marsh.
Mrs. Klixabeth Greenberry examined by Serjeant lie, octt.
Witness temembees living at. Kcgt House Faros; was the house.

:.

keeper to Mr, Randall, and is his slateri knew Mr. Head, the
husband of Mrs. Head ; has Teen WWI% :]want Hour! Farm ;
saw him several times, but did uet see him always ; opened the
door the last time she saw him, and let him in ; it was the latter!
end of July or beginning of August; ii was in harvest time;
Mrs. Head was at home with Mr. R. bee brother, who was laid
up with the gout. He asked for Mrs. klead—rhe asked if Mrs.
Head was at home, and witness 'hewed hint into the kitchen,
and said she would-tell Mrs.llead of his arrival; which she did.
It was on a Sunday; -she wipes down to-the kitchen to hint ;'
there was no ether person in the kitchen ; this was the last time
witness saw Mr. Head ; it was about ten or eleven o'clock;
witness left in 1798 ; she has only been there since as a visitor.
Mrs. Head, front the observations she made, was in the family
way when she left. •
Mr. Serjeant LENS addressed the Jury. It was an
important subject to all parties as to the question of
legitimacy, and it was important as to law. The
question was, whether the plaintiff was the son of one
father or the other? And the Learned Serjeant con-
cluded he was the son of Randall, and not of Head.

William Arnold—ls Parish perk and Schoolmaster of Becken-
ham; knows the plaintiff; witness understood his name to he
James Randall and no other; don't know who brought him
there; his father brought him, he supposes, there ; he paid him
up to Christtnas, 1810 ; he never saw him at the school in parti-
cular; don't recollect that he came to the school; he paid
him from time to time as other people did ; James itandall
paid him; witness always considered plaintiff 'as James Ran-
dall's child.

Several other witnesses were called, but nothing
further was elicited from their testimony.
The Learned JUDGE summed up, and the Jury
brought in a verdict for the plaintiff.