The Statesman.
London, England, 1823-08-28 00:00:00

4rtiO_

Mr. Thomas. Phillips, nephew to the .latelldr. Phillips,
for whom Mr. 'Partner had pinched in November last,
proved the fact of his having se preache.. on Tuesday the
kb of Not. There was a patty to ten at Mt. Phillips'
:there wart parlouroppostte en &Uses& in which thepily
sat. Ifs could not say whether Mr. Farmer bad left the
room' for a short time before be went to the chapel or not.
Tkite were four ladies present.
' Mr. Jos. Ogle Robinson, a bookseller in the City, and.
living at Battersea-rise, stated that he was brother-in-law to
Mr. Former; he was on a visit to his house in November
last; he bad been very ill, and came up for his health ;
re-
weatbered the night he preached for Mr. Phillips; it was
on Tuesday, Nov. the sth ; was at Mr. Phillips's house,
lseforr they went to meeting ; on the following day. Wed-
aesdsy, Mr. Farmer went to London ; did sot remember
what time he came home; witness got hoMe first; Mr.
Farmer's hours Were in general very early.; be was seldom
out of witness's house after 8 o'clock at night ; he was to
depart for the country the next morning; remembered being
at the workhouse when Hannah Forster was examined;
the question put to her was this : " Now, upon your oath,
(she war not sworn) did Mr. Farmer ever take any liberties
with you previous to pour meeting with him on the COIII-
won?" She answered, "no man."
In cross-examination--Witness admitted that Mir.
Farmer's health bad been restored in November. He did.,
not remember at what time. Mr. Farmer came home on
the night of Wednesday, the 6th of November, or whe-
ther he returned on font or not. Witness Was home fitst.—
He went home that night before eight. How much sooner
he coned not say. The sapper tray was usually brought up
between 8 and 9. Thought Mr. Farmer did not come borne
till after the Supper tray wag brought in. Witness accom-
psnied Mr. Farmer to Mr. Phillips's, and from thence to the
weetiot house, on the Tatibday. Did not notice whether he
quitted the room after tea or not.
This was the case for the defendant.
Mr. Hartarr then thortly replied. Re denied that any-
thing like a clear or itatisfactorr cOstradiction had been
given to the case which had been proved ion the part of the
parish—on the contrary, the story of the woman had been
consistent throughout, and precisely what might have been
expected from a woman in her disgratiefdl sitnation. He
then touched upon the various topics which had been urged
by Mr. A. in favour of the defendant. and submitted, that
in the circumstances to which he had alluded, there wail
nothing which was not perfectly reconcilable with the fact
charged. The only witness who bad been called. whose
evidence at all bore upon the case, was Mr. Kitcherinae;
the particular friend of Mr. Farmer; but upon contrasting
his testimony with that of Hannah Forster, he was per-
suaded that the latter was by far the least exceptionable.
He had before said he did not wish to say more on this sub:
jec; than the fair performince of his duty demanded; and
he should now refrain from adding any thing which was
calculated to give pain. In conclusion, he could only ex-
press his perfect confidence that their Worships would make
the order of filiation.
The room was then cleared; and the Magistrates proceed:
ed to deliberate on their judgment.
After the lapse of an hour strangers were admitted, and
the Hey. Mr. Farmer being called in,
Mr. Haisalsow, the Chairman, spoke as follows: We
have taken considerable' tints to examine the facts of this
painful case, as we felt it our duty to do, with a due regard
both to the complainant and Mr. Farmer. Upon the best
possible attention we have been enabled to give the subject,
we feel ourselves compelled to say, and io our
.judgment it
has been clearly proved, that William Farmer is the father
of this child, and we adjudge William Fanner to he the
father accordingly. We are, however, greatly relieved trout
the responsibility of this decision, when we reflect that Mr.
Farmer has an opportunity of appealing from our judgment
elsewhere. Upon the best consideration, in our estimation
the balance of testimony favours the opinion which we
have given. Al*. Farmer will of course consult his own
feelings as to whether lie will submit the circumstances to
the Magistrates at large, and that he should do so is oar
most anxious wish, as the doubts which have arisen in our
winds will then receive a more deliberate' examination. He
may also have an opportunity of coring fresh witnesses.
Mr. Farmer immediately arosa and said, " Oeatlemen, I
have very little to say on this subject; I am ineocent of
this charge ; I cannot submit to any order of affiliation,
which you may think proper to make. and 1 am determined
to go to 'prison, rather than pay a single farthing towards
the support of a child which is not mine ; I am perfectly
innocent."
The order of filiatiolt was then made out and signed by
the Magistrates, as well as an order for the expences al-
ready incurred by the parish.
Some discussion then took place as to whether entering
into recogniaances, preparatory to an appeal, necessarily
bound the sureties to pay any part of the costs awarded
against the appellant, provided his appeal were unsucess-
ful, as the friends of Mr. Farmer were resolved not to sub-
mit to the most trifling exaction of that sort.
In the end Mr. Pauper was allowed two days to con-
sider, whether lie would submit to time orders which were
made, appeal, or go to prison.—The Sessions then ad-
journed, •
The case has excited a good deal of interest in the parish
of Clapham.
The orders made were to pay 3s. 6d. per week for the
support of the child, and 31. 7s. for expences hitherto in-
curred by the parish in medical attendance, fee.
Mr. Farmer appears to be about thirty-eight years of age.