Star.
London, England, 1827-07-17 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OP CHANCERY, Jury IS.
This morning, before the sitting of the Coort; Ca„
FEEDER:ICE WILLIAMS, EN. WILLIAM Sitwew, Bsq.
and die Hon THOMAS ERACINL attended is the Lisan
Cnalectivsn's private room, and were sworn in of hi.
MAirarv's Counsel. At the sitting of the Court' the
three new made King's Counsel appeared behind ti e
Bar, when the Logo CHANCELLOR addressing one of
them, said, 1,, Mr. WILLIAM., his MAJESTY having
been graciously pleased to advance you to the dignity
of one of his,Codosel learned in the law, you will please
to take your seat within. ERN" The CHANCELLOR then
addressed Mr. Sazirrn and Mr. Earmuff in similar
terms, end the three Learned Gentlemen took their seats
amongst his Majesty's Corinth
MORRIS V. DAVIS—JUDGMENT.
The LORD CHANCELLOR gave judgment in the above
tame this day, which was an application for a new trial
of an issue directed by this Court, tried at the last
Shrewsbury Assizes, before Mr. Baron Vaughan ; and
the only question for the consideration of the Jury was,
whether the plaintiff was the legitimate son of a Mr.
and Mrs. Morris, formerly resident at Shrewsbury ? A
verdict was given in favour of the plaintiff, and, in the
course of last term, an application was made by Mr.
Taunton that a second trial might take place, on the
ground of a misdirection of the Learned Judge. His
Lordship observed, that the only point for his decision
was, whether the result of the trial was so far satisfac-
tory as to enable the Court finally to dispose of the
cause? With respect to the law on subjects of th's na-
ture, no doubt could be entertained, after what had been
laid down in the case of the Banbury Peerage,.that it
was necessary to bring forward clear and satisfactory
evidence to rebut the presumption of legitimacy. In
this case it appeared to be admitted that, after the se-
paration of Mr.and Mrs. Morris, her husband frequently
visited her at her house at Llanfair, and the law would,
presume that intercourse had taken place. But the
arguments in favour of an opposite conclusion wete de-
serving of great attention, in- consequence of their con-
tinuing to live apart for a considerable period after the
spring of the year 1792 Daring the time of their se-
paration it was quite clear that Mrs. Morris was living
in a state of adultery with a person of the name of
Austin, formerly a servant in the family, but who was
gradually advanced to the situation of an equal. Accord.
ing to the testimony.
.of several witnesses, he dined at the
same table, and in every way conducted himself as if
he had been her husband and the master of the house.
About Christmas,l792, a child was born, Mts. Morris
being at that time,and having for the last 12 months been
living in adultery with Austin, and every precaution
was observed to conceal its birth. It was carefully re-
moved in the middle of the night to a distance from
Llanfair, and was conveyed to the house of Austin's
father and mother, under whose care it was brought up,
and no communication whatever was made to Mr.
Morris of the birth of the child. About seven years
'afterwards, in consequence of some reports having got
into circulation, of Mrs. Morris having had a child by
Austin, Mr. Mortis reproached his wife with having
concealed its birth; but she most strenuously and ve-
hemently denied that she had ever had a child by Ausa
tin, and Mr. Morris, therefore, always considered he
bad only one child, his daughter, Harriette, the wife of
the defendant. When Mr. Morris made his will, being
at variance with bit daughter, be bequeathed the whole
of his propeoy yas his nephews; but, in consequence of;
having beasts* reconciled to her, be revoked his
and left the property to Mrs. Davis and her children,
taking no notice whatever of any other person. Ac-
cording to the evidence of the Clergyman, under whose
care the plaintiff was placed upon his being sent to
school, it appeared that he passed by the name of Evan
Austin, and that he had always been recognised by

r. Wilke s exploded scheme to

. _ .
Austin as his son. Upon Austin's going into the army, out in furtherance of .
he accompanied his regiment to the West Indies, and at put money in his pocket.
his death, bequeathed his property to this young man, Mr. HIALD appeared for the plaintiff, in support of
althoogh his father acid mother were then living, and in the bill. He contended that there was a contract for
very needy circumstances; and taking the whole of the purchase of the mines, and the defendants were
these facts together, there was a very strong presump- liable. The arguments of his Learned Friends on the
tiOn, that this was not the child of Mr. Morris, but the other side went to shew that no one was responsible for
child of Mr. Austin. It would, therefore, be material the wrong done to the plaintiff. There could be no
for the Jury to consider whether the occasional visits of doubt that the payments admitted to have been made
Mr. Morris to Llanfair, and the presumption that he bad were a part performanCe of a contract, and that Court
intercourse with his wife, was not 'sufficiently repelled would not fail to enforce the remainder of it. If not,
by the circumstances to which he had adverted ? It how- what remedy would the plaintiff have for the &precis'.
ever appeared from the ev islence of Mary Evans,that Mr. tion of his property ? The defendants had not only
and Mrs. Morris, on one occasion, slept together at the agreed to pay for the mines, but they had taken posses-
house of a Mrs. Lloyd after their separation, and al- sion of them, and worked them; and now the machinery
though Mrs. Lloyd confirmed the testimony of Mary had been seized in payment of the wages of the work.
Evans as to that fact, still she did not mention the men. Some one must answer for the damage thus done.
period at which they visited her, and he therefore did Sir C. WETHERILL followed on the same side, He
not find any thing to justify him in believing that these observed that the plaintiff had performed his part of the
parties passed the night at the house of Mrs. Lloyd any contract, and the Court would abandon its duty if it did
time in the year 1792. -If that circumstance had been not oblige the defendants to perform theirs. It had been
established to his satisfaction, the case would certainly the rule of that Court, for 100 years before the bubble,
have presented itself to his mind in a different shape year of 1825, that parties, acting representatively for
than it did at present; but as this fact had not been others, might be attached in the name of those others;
proved, he was desirous that the case should undergo and, he apprehended, that the events of that year, how-
further consideration, and he wished the Jury to be ever good the public policy of it might be, would not be
asked whether they believed that Mr. and Mrs. Morris permitted to alter a fundamental principle and rule of!
slept together at the house of Mrs. Lloyd io the year law. An appeal must certainly be made to the House
1792? He was extremely anxious that the case should of Lords should any such deviation from established rule
not be prejudiced by any thing which might have passed and custom be sanctioned.
in this Court, and the only reason for his wishing this Mr. KNIGHT was also heard on the same side.
case to be again tried was, that he considered he shoold. The VICR-CHANCILLOR gave judgment, without calls
be guilty of great injustice if he came to any decision ing upon the defendants Counsel to reply. He decided
upon it in its present shape. His Lordship directed the that the demurrer must be allowed on various- parts
consideration of costs to be reserved till the matter of the pleadings. Upon looking at the plaintiff's
should again come before the Court. " bill, he observed, that he set out the property which
VICE CHANCELLOR'S COURT. Inv tit. he said he had sold to defendants as " mines" in which
CORNWALL AND DEVONSHIRZ MINING COMPANY. he had a "certain interest." This description be held to
MILKS V. LORD PALMIRSTON AND OTHERS. be far too indefinite to warrant the plaintiff's application
This case was part heard on Saturday. It was argued to that Court to enforce a contract. The "• certain in.
on demurrer to the plaintiff's bill,which was impleaded terest" of se hich plaintiff spoke might be an interest
as demurrable for want of parties, and as not attaching only for a week or a month ;it might be an interest in
the defendants upon its own premises. The bill was part only ; and certainly was not such, if it would admit
filed for spec'fic performance of a contract, in which, of no better designation, as could authorise the Court to
it was alleged, the defendants entered to purchase from decree the payment of 121 0001. This be was convinced
the plaintiff certain mines in Cornwall and Devonshire, would have been the decision had the cause ever come
at the price of 120,0001. In support of this allegation, to a hearing. But the demurrer against the bill wail
it was charged, that, at two Meetings of the Share. good upon other grounds. By the pleadings it ap-
holders, in the year 1625, resolutions, pledging the peered that there had been two meetings with reference
Company to the purchase of the mines is question to the alleged contract for the mines. At the first of
were passed. these a resolution was passed to recommend the pur-
Mr. CHING having stated the contents of the plain. chase of the mines to otter parties. At the second meet
tiff's bill, ing the recommendation was adopted, and Directors ap-
Mr. HORNE proceeded, in support of the demurrer poir.ted; but the money paid by these Directors was not
put in by the defendant, to animadvert upon the mate- ih it own, but which s as subscribed by shareholders and
rial passages in it. The bill charged against the de- others present. It was n ,t, however, against the defend.
fendants that the plaintiff, having an interest in certain ants, as Directors, that the bill had been filed, but against
wines in Cornwall and Devonshire, in the year 1825, the defendants, who were at the first meeting, and who
contracted to sell them to the defendants " or some of did not their contract for the purchase, but merely re-
them ;" that, at a Meeting held at the Albion Tavern, solved to recommend others so to do. The bill was not,
maintainable upon this ground. If, instead of
in the early part of 19.:.5, at which were present the de- betel 're•