Star. — London, England, 1814-12-06 00:00:00

I pt. :ie, tie. rod red the alf; N. co• ime lest d.. 6n brig sited btof edits Teat . .Th, pabil t 4blit p a tch 7 4.1'24 Ds i 0• r ice any iA Royal in l;f e Fa t AC IL Fp Ace . WO " LifiV MELLICENCE. COURT OF KING'S BEACH, DL'2EMBIIt S. Th! KING V. LOUD 1!1YI.If. This wig at. i •icrtivit preferred against the Ho nouresle J , •iin Boyle, commonly called Lord Boyle, tor ..n assau! , committed by him upon the person of Peter Richalson, Esq. a Nlagistrate of the county of Midi lest while in the cltcharrie of his hia,gisterial ch&cs. In eft um counts the defendant was c.hargcd having, committed a common assault. I apoes: . ed that the defendant, who had s-rved his country in the naval department, had art ved in Eng land !font France, where he had beer a prisoner, only within aim days of the transaction in qn In the coarse of hit perambulations about town, it ~a s the defendant's misfit :tine to get into an affray with sorne of the Bow-street officer; in coom•quence of w'tich he was carried to that Office, and while he was there, under examination, on the 80th of June last, the yrroecutor, win is a f tgistrate of the comity, mile in and took his seat upon the Benck, along with Sir N. Connant, and the other Magistrates. Lord Boyle was at this time conducting himself in a manner highly indecorous, and soon after the prosecutor had taken his place, L. led Boyle, pointing out to some of the officers standing in the Office, said, " Those fel lows, standing there, are rogues and pickpockets ; I am a Nobleman ; is there no protection for the No bility of this country ; are all to be put on an equa. lity ; am I to be put on a footing with those thieves and pickpockets r The prosecutor, upon thus, ob served, " The laws of this country are made fur the protection of every oae 1 and you, my Lord, as a Gentleman, ought to know that." In reply to this observation, his Lordship exclaimed Who are you ?" The prosecutor replied, " I am a Magis trate, and have a right to be sitting here." I'o this his Lordship said nothing ; but addressing Sir N. Co nant, and pointing to Mr. Stafford, the Clerk, who was taking the deposition, said, " That fellow, sit ting there, is a coward, a low fellow, and a pettifog ger." Of these obiervations, no notice was taken by any one, till the prosecutor observed—" That the conduct of Lord Boyle was unmanly, thus to attack k man in the discharge of the duties of his office, and at a time when the patty assaulted could not, by pos tibility, defend himself." The defendant, upon this, turned towards the prosecutor, seized him by the col lar, and exclaimed " You shall come out, old gent le- Than—you shall come out." The prosecetor, rising from his chair, and shaking the defendant off, r plied, " Go out with you! why you are in custody !" His Lordship replied, " You shall meet me, d —it me— you shall meet me, old ~oy.'"lhe prosecutor re plied, " If I meet you it will he by accident. ; and I carry a stick in my hand, which will er:itc‘t me and chastise you, if you shou'.l tie,tave so violently as you have now done." . Mr. bketchly here interfered, and said, to Lord Boyle„ 'bat Gentleman is a Magis. trate,. and has 4 right to sit hen." Upon Leitrim which, the defendant held his hand out to the pr..se. tutor, saying, 66 Then let us make it up ; let us shake bands." 'to which the prosecutor replies, "No ;—. you haxeheetk guilty of very gross behaviour, and it it not to be made up in that way." On thepart of the defendant, the Art JIINLY G ENE. ItAl. stated, that the defendant in this case Lhe dispai the assault complained of; just 41TIVCLI i r town, isimiliois discharge from a French prison, where he had blinfor acme tire; that be had Sot very drunk. and had been driving ablut town i al. Olt chaos and foilirillitteleis a c tion o! his life which he so such regretted as the transacLions of this day ; and he had since- &reeled his attorney to wine a letter to the solicitor of the promcdtor expressive of his regret for the conduct of whichohe had been guilty. This he had hoped would have satisfied Mr. Richardson, as the apology contained in the letter Was a most ample one. Here the Attorney General read the letter in question. • Lord ELLEIMOROUGH said, that, and much less than that, might have done, had the letter been signed by his Lordship ; as it *as written Ey another, however, - it was not enough. 'rh , feelings of•an in dividual bad been grossly insulted : and be had a tight to expect the person giving the offence, if die was of superior rank, should descend from his high sta tion, and make an ample apology in person. A ver dict of guilty must be taken. He trusted such a step los be had alluded to would be taken, and that . the Court would hear no more of it. The Jury found the defendak Goilty. If, there fore. the pr secutor should piay for judgment, his tordeltip srillbe brought up in the coarse of next term. . ,;s wa c s i ,an t action brought Dl b Try D y General uNNE' Dyott, *Out the Zdeadant, a medical man, recently re. sth at B ith, for criminal conversation with the Put nni's wife. ArITORNET-GENZRAL orened the case for the Oaiutiff. The Lady was a daughter, and one of four Co.heireeses of Mr. Thompson, formerly of Grosve nor-square. She was married in 1606 to General Dytat, who, as General of the District, bas lately res.ded at Litchfield. Mrs. Dyott went to Bath in the last summer, where the detendant was introduced to her as a medical man. His visits at length became very frequent, and he was received by Mrs. Dyott upon very lamiliar terms, going nut with her in her carriage for two or three hours at a time. The G. ' neral visited M rs . D ec o ocam i e m a lly, as his proles. sional duties would permit, but in the beginning of October she left Bath with her servants, and came with Mr. Dunne to srlodging-house in Sloane-street; trom thence they removed to 7 house in the Rules of the King's Bench, and from this bottle Mr. Dunne .7:ts removed to the Fleet Prison, where he now re and where Mrs. Dyott was seen with him a cale before. eight o'clock Os morning. The mar rage being proved, Tnompson, Esq. Charles Date, Esq. Aid-de-camp to General Dyott, and Mrs: Dale, niece of General Dyott, were called to give tefidence to the harmony and happiness in which the tie:feral and his wife had lived together. They cha r..sterised his conduct as =Est kind and attentive to her, she bad borne him three children,, and they teemed to be perfectly happy. Mr: Harman, a trustee ender the marriage settle . - wient, provt , ?.. the regular payment of ,Cl3OO a year to fir'. Dyctt. Robert-Peek, st foetatan hived by Mrs. Dyott at bath, gave evidence as to the frequency and familia. T•ty of Air. Dunne's skits, and also to their travel. 31 g together in Dyat's carriage from Bath to carro t ,- r • i ttssz.t girl s funs the lodgirgbonse in Sloane. street. proved that Mr. Dtinne slept fn ha own heti only the two first nights that they Were thete, and that for the rnm.rind:•r of the time he puled : , is nights in Mrs. Dyott's bed roam. She IrAti tound Mr. Dunne's ch:nnivr canillestick in Mrs. llyott's rourn, and one rnOrning as she was coming down stairs she saw Mr. Dunne coming out of Mrs.llyott's room vitt' nothing on but his night gown. Upon seeiu . % the girl he looked very much confused, turned back Imo dic room and shut the door; directly B:ter, he cam?. out and went into the bed-room where Mrs. Dyott's tn.tid slept. This wetness made Mrs. Dyott's bed, w!eich phieely appeared to have contained more persons than one, and she observed some pArticether marks upon the sheets which she pointed out to her mistress. T..e girl's mistress, Miss Moy, was called. She said that Mrs. Dyott and her servants, and Mr. Dunne, lodged at her house, in Sloane-stteet, in Oc tober. The List witness strewed her something par ticular in the bed linen, which, as she herself was a single wf—.tan, she shewed to a neighbour, Mrs. Briggs. Mrs.Brige, said the sheets were shewn to her, and she had no s' • übt that the marks upon them were :hose of .an inteicourse between the SCX2S. Mrs. Howe, a chili-woman to Mrs. Dyntt and Mr. Dunne whole they li d in Asylum Buildings, within the rules of the King's Bench, said, there were three bed room:, One the best r‘iom, in Ntr:ich was Mrs. Dyott's bed, another in which Mrs. Skellett, the lady's ma;:!, slept, and a tl:•ri a ki:ld of back parlour in which t!it footman sl-pt. The coachman being lodged out of the house i there was no other mutt than Mrs. Dyott's ff.r Mr. Dunne to sleep in, and on the first Friday morning titer they were there, when she went at six o'clock, Mr. Dunne put his head out of . Mrs. Dyott's room window, and seeing who it was, came down and let her in. John Bates, a turnkey at .the Fleet Prison, said Mrs. Dyott shpt in the prison last night. Mr. Dunne had been a prisoner there since October 11th, and in that time h. had seen her there, accompanied by an other female, whom he supposed t...) be her maid, perhaps as m.:r.y as twenty times. She was not a prisoner, but he let her °tit at eight o'cic::k this morning. Mr. Dunne• was arrested at the suit of General Dyott —This closed the Plaintiff's case. There w.ts irt defence. The L6ne CHIEF iIIoTICE, in summing up to the Jury, said it was for them to consider what amount of damages could compensate;—as as money could compensate the plaintiff for the injury he had sus tained in the loss of a woman whom he could no longer receive as the wife of his bed, or the mother at his children. He married her a lady of fortune and character, the sister of ladies Of fortune, but all his propects of happiness in her society were closed upon hitn for ever. The Jury after a few minutes deliberation returned Verdict for the Plaintiff—Daniages. Five Thousand Pounds. [it was stated by the ATTORNEY-GFERAL, tha the lady could at once realize ten thousand pounds of her ewn.] COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, Dec. 5. CRIM. LORD AUDI)LETOS. This was an action brought by the plaintiff, a ~,rent leman well known in the county of Warwickshire, against Lord oliddleton, for criminal conversation with his wife, the Honourable Frances Knight, daughter of • Lord Dormer. In other terms, it was .in action to recover a compensation in damages for an injury cone the plrintift, whereby he had been de prived of the aid, comfort, fellowship, and society of his wife. Mr. Serkant BEST, for the plaintiff, said,' the Jury had heard, by the pleadings, that this was an action brought by Mr. Knight against the Not-.le defendant, for criminal conversation with his wife. After the greatest attention to this case, i.e WAS deeply con vinced that it was one in which the Jury, to do jus tice, weuid fi nd f or the plaintiff. He was aware of considerable difficulty in the case. Doubts might arise on matters of law, and those doubts could be disposed of by the Court, but it happened he had much greater difficulty. There was a great body ot wiinesses, and the larger part of them were either under t e ii; fluence ot the defendant or the adulteress. _Tile plaintiff in the action was a person of large for tune and honour tile lam.ly ; he had been a ;amber of Parliament, And was, on the whole, a most rt. spectabie gentleman. The defendant WAS a person of great consideration ; he seas a Peer of the realm, possessing one : alba largest fortunes in England.— There was one circumstance in the case which he supposed would be pressed by his Learned Brother on the other side ; namely, that at the time of the Adultery, which gave occasion to this action, the plaint:ff and his wife, for causes best known to them selves, were certainly not living together. Though aware of that circumstance, lie was persuaded he should be able to satisfy the Jury that the plaintiff was entitled to damages. He had occasion to-state circumstances as the leundatioa of evidence to prove that adultery had been committed by the defendant. The plaintiff resided in Loni.ion, and, previous to the adultery, his wife lived in Hampton Cottage, situate at a small village near the the' town of Warwick.— "The defendant had large estates in that part of the r country, and one seat near the residence of the plain tiff's wife. About the latter part of 1812, the Noble Lord was in the habit of visiting the Cottage, and it would appear in evidence that, immediately after he was a visitor there, he was treated different from other visitors. When the Noble Lord came to the plaintiff's wife, he was conducted into a room, where ,he remained with her during several hours together. He stayed late, and as this happened frequently, the servants began to suspect that some criminality was to take place between the parties. In consequence of that suspicion, one of the servants, who had been told by another servant to keep away from that part of the house where Lord Middleton and Mrs. Knight were, looked in at the window. He had seen the curtains down, which sanctioned his supposition that all was not fair. He looked into the window, and SAW what would go far to prove the adultery. There were sofas on each side the fire place ; on one the Noble defendant was seated with his arm round the plaintiff's wile. The servant, fearful of being dis• covered, went away without observing any thing further at that time, but he had no doubt in his mind, from what he had seen, that the adultery would, or had taken place. The sante servant would tell the Jury, that tLe Noble Letd had always kept a num- Sir of servants, and that he never tilveried without groorrr, except when he came to Mrs. Knight.— Oil visiting at the Cottage, he was obterted coming without any set vault, and instead of tiding pp to the door, he went by a back way, which no other per son visiting this lady ever went. that was not all ; she defendant was anxious that it should not be known that he was in the house, and he put his horse in the stable himself, locked the door, anJ carried away the key in his pocket. The Jury might say this would nor prove the adultery ; but it was possible, by a vast cumber of such circumstances, to prove it. ‘Vheit all were put together, the proof would be stronger with facts directl) sworn. In ad dition to the Nofile Lord's endeavour to conceal his visits to this lady, he had to state another circunk stance, which would leave no doubt of the adultery. It would be proved, that who.; th , Noble 1. ,rd was visitor in the apartment of this lady, atiiitner per; called, in consequence of which, a servant went ; rn apartment where Mrs. Knight sat. On oper, , !:g the dot-r, and going in, he found .1 :. 1 .31-ileton rising up, turning his face to the fire, and avarently ;1 the act of adjusting the lower part his dross. m Knight was greatly confused, at,i the set .nt would say . , he had little d ,, ubt the adultery ha I beent oem mitted. This was at the latter end of Dec. 18 i 4, or the beginning of January, 1813, and th.: Leraned Serjeant was anxious the Jury should understand, that while this ':%%ts passing betii - v.:n the Fl ,, hle defendant and Mrs. tin' ,ht, the plaintiff was living in London, where he hid hcic. Lstahlislied x lent; previint3, without either seeing or corresponding t+•ith his wife. In Mad+ the servants discovered Mrs. h•ii+tlit exhi bited evident symptoms of pregnancy, and on tb: 7th of October. 1813, nine months after tht_•.last act of adultery, Mrs. Knight was &livered of a male child. It v,ould prove.i that Lord Mid.lleton was flund in the . spring of t!to year still visiting this L.tdy, not only in the Lou;:try, but in town ; and if so, could the Jury have any dattbt that this child, which was . not the child of the plAiatitf, WAS the child of Lord MiddLtuu ? But he could shew the interest Lord Middleton took in the child (lid not leave the least ground to doubt he was the lather.. Mrs. Knight was rernoved to London in March, IEI3, and having a liver cf;mplaint, for a short time WAS at the house of her sister. After continuing there some time, and as her delivery approached, it was necessary she should be provided with lodgings. She accordingly fired a house in Devcnshire.street, with a confidante named Jordan, and it was agreed she should take the name of Jordan. She was represented as Mrs. Jcr dan, the wife of an offrer in the army. At this house Mrs. Knight was brought to bed of a male in fant, and that Mrs. Knight was adulterous, there could be no doubt ; but the material question Whether the Noble Lord was the adulterer? The Learned 3erjeant said he had put circumstances of suspicion together to eve the Noble Defendant was the only person who chia!d commit the adultery; and he would go further, Le would shew the Noble Lord was a person visiting Mrs. Knight when she was liv. ing under a feigned name. He was told the Noble lord was at the christening ; but as there was some doubt on that point, he should leave it to depend on the evidence. But whether he was there or not, be could prove that after the deliver y of Mrs. Knight he repeated his visits; he came there at six in the even ing, and remained with her till one or 'two in tjte cnoltniag; she was then living at the house .of Mrs. Portman, in Manchester-square; and a servant hat , . ing occasion to !.. s ro to Mrs. Knight, in the drawing. room, a iew minutes after Lord Middleton left the house, found the back drawingroom.door locked. This transaction was after the chill was born, but it was a strong circumstance to prove the criminality was continued. There was ar.afher extrar4d: -, ary feature in the case. The Noble Lord '. d taken care that none of the servants who attended about Mrs. Knight duriug her pregnancy should have an opportunity et keowing his p- s'n. Under the charactor 01 uncle, he went to see the child. Would there hive been this parental feeling had it not been his child? The Noble Lord ;we additional • of mat the.child was lux : it was ceristened in the parish of Mary-la-bonne, in October, I . Blle, by the name of Henry Caarle;, son of Charles and the Honourable Frances Knight. "1 have a few observations to make • n that," said Mr. Serjeant Best ; ‘, but before I come to that, will prove that the Noble Lord was sa anxious about this child, that he went to the church under a feigned name to get a copy of the regist...r of its Imptiard.— How can you account fLir all !hese visits to the mo ther of the child, without coming to a conclusion that this child was begotten by the Noble Lord ? therefore lie is guilty of adultery. Neither in this case nor any other is it necessary we mus: have direct proof. There is in many cases no eye.witnesses of crimes ; and it Juries do not attend to circumstances, guilt may never be brought to justice. It is impos sible to doubt, front the beginning of the circum stances in this case, that adultery has been commit- ted by somebody. A child, being born in wedlock, is supposed to be the child of the husband; but here I thew beyond a doubt that it 1%15 impossible it can be the child of the husband : then who has been the adulterer ? Why, you must decide by circuinst f olces leading to proof ; if you do not, you will not be right. If the Noble Lord is not the adulterer, he can prove to us by his servants who were the persons who got this lady with child; but I believe the Noble Lord was the only person who had cominunicaticn with this Lady. I will call on the Lady herself to produce evidence, to prove whether there is any other person to be father to the cl,ild, in order to t it::: the burthen o'S the Noble Lord.—The only e i oci:ion re maining is the damages. I have expel ie:ice enougl. to know th•it I cannot expect daniaws where the hus- band and wife are separated, equal to w h at I expect it the wife was living with her husband : but in this case yon will consider the rank t.t the parties. Both stand high in property and character, but the peculiar situation of die plaintiff entitles him to your vtrdict for damages on a large scale. Ile has by his present wife two daughters • he is pout ssed 4nd settled on his heir male ; th en it goes to his nephew, and, in default, it comes back to his daughters. Is it no prejudice that is thrown on the daughters by this spurious birth, which is to deprive them of tie settlement they are to have ? The circumstance of child being brought into the family, without it is proved to be illegitimate, may deprive the legal chil dren of their inheritance. It may be said, what da. mages it a man entitled to who has given up the so ciety of his wife ? It is true they have separated— .ind did k folio* they lilight dot hiire been tosetleek again ? but when addict:l took place it was trhpoi:" sible. Was it justifiable in any to take adv.intage of a womAn in Mrs. Knight's situation, for the purplse, of seducing her from the path of virtue, in ordt , r to .reduce leer to that seckn and derision of the wild, in which the husband alwayi participates ? As he might not have an opportunity of addressing the Jury, it would be necessary to prove what he bad intimated respecting the register of baptism. 11 the defenJant had been a party to it, withing too strong cnu:d bf said of his cotiductt The Jury would see the child was registered as legitimate, wlirn it was a Bastard. It Was registered as the child of Mr. and Mt s. Knight: that at any time after, when there r.is possiqc :;seatis of obtaining proofs of its iilegitintacy, this re g' aro:::d put it out of the question. It purp nrted s ti . the child was the son of Chaties and Frances Kai; .t;. now the name of the plaintiff was not Chailes, but Robert ; however, if it were a question some years hence, a Court might perhaps esta'slish iegitim t_y. The entry wai to make it appear that the child w.i. the child of the plaintiff. Tne Learned Serjeant again deprecate, site* an attempt, and con cluded by cniiing the folio% ing evidence James Govee Joduced the tegister of the marrien of Robi.t and the lion. Fran: •e' Dot:nar, by special het ~•se, on the lath of June, 1791. Jannis West 5..1.1, he had knocu Mr. Kiti4ht and Lis lady ; they heel been s.•pateed -.bout seven or eight years —witness knew that As. Knight breueht in action against Colonel Fullerton. ; .:ven years ago, hr criminal conversation with ht's. -ht ; tl.d ant keen. whether the damages Were nt; :zed :o Colonel F ill:: ton; witness had known Mr. K .ever since his mar.iage; Mr. Kni,,ht told the stint •ss • ;hat lie could n tt nbtaie a dive c., I:ecat•se 1.0 !lasi been charged with collusitnt in .1...t.ti • co.. Fullerton. Anne Jordan said, she was aal r : actress, she knew Mrs. Knight; she lived wiei eur a. s . year, and left her in the present year; Mrs. Ka 7 ;lit heed in 1810 at Waspertoth near Warwick ; site went *to Hampton Cottage 1811 ; it is two miles free 7•rar- . wick ; her family consisted cf the winless, the e.saki a girl housemaid, and three men servants; the ti-s: man was a William Parson, next Robsrt C• Leman, and John Walford ; she knew Lead Nlidleton many years ago; his Lordship sometimes visited Hamptan Cottage; be came alone, and often accompanied by other gentlemen ; my mistress received him, when be came alone, in the drawing-room ; he might have re mained two hours at a time ; he once called after dark, and went in by the garden ; Mrs. Knight left Hampton Cottage the last time in 1813; she had left it before in the spring of the year, about the middle of April ; Mrs. Knight went to No. 7, Manchester street, anchester-square, and went by her own name ; she removed to Mrs. Portman's, her sister's, in Manchester-square, and went back to Hampton Cottage in July ; she came to twin again to Man chester-street, and from thence to Devonshire -street; I continued with her and she went by my name, Anne Jordan; she remained' in Devonshire.street a and during that time was brought to bed of a son ; she had a nurse, Mts. Delay ; Mr. Thynne, a medical gentleman, was to have attended ; we re tensed to 'Manchester-square House the beginning of November; I there left her; the child was not christened while I was with her ; I saw Lord Mid dleton in Manchester-square, after the child was horn; never saw him in Devonsiiire.-street; he saw. Mrs. Knight ; witness had been with her husband ever since. It was same distance (rent Grove ark, the house of LOrd Dormer, and nlisn Lord Middle ton went on a visit to Lord Dormer, he had to pats Mrs. Knight's cottage. Lord M. never viseed in any other way than other gentlemen who visited Lnrd Dormer. Tue first separation between Mls. Knight and the plaintiff WAS in 1803 ; the action was is 1807 ; since that trial Ml.s. Knight had not been ge . nerally visited by Ladies; the gentlemen of Grave Pat k called on her, and their visas had been gene rally later than Lord Middleton's ; Lord Middleton nev.r slept at I.tampten Cntuge more than once ; L ird .Taanworth slept there more than oace ; when he last slept there it was in Augitst ; the child horn was a seven MC/lien child: WitllCSa :;ad never seca any indecency of c..:nduct between Lord Middles n and this L:►dy ; witness kin:w Uric Mrs. Knight had ill state of health, a.►d a liver c 4::.,. awt ; wr.ness never SAW any impropriety, never saw Mrs. K:,►Sht there. Doctor Andrew Thynne was not acquainted Mrs. Knight before he attended her for her sition ; she was in labour in Devonshire.btreet ; it was about the first week in October, I i 3 ; witness was not present when the child was born ; his father was sent for between three and four o'clock, but being ill coup not go : he desired me to go to Mrs. Jordan, in Devonshire-street : I went : returned and told my father the Lady wanted him : he went with m.., and Mrs. Knight seeing his ill state, allowed me to ~trend her : I went to vi,it another Lady, and came back before the child's birth was complete. Serjeaut Surseueuri.—Q. Dist ti is appe:r a sovte months chid ?—.A. The child vst!s p..ts:y and deli- came : I did not expect the child to liv John Ccicman said, he WjS in the surv!ce of the Rev. Mr. Rrgers : he lei i. the saviee of Mrs. K night in January, 1813; was with her in January, 1812: Lord Middleton was in the habit of visiting: his Lordship appeared to come slyly across the fields : I never knew his Lordship to come more than twice I l without a groom : I have put his horse in the stable : his Lordship has put it iii himself, and the k.y has been taken from the door: Lord Middleton Was shewn into the drawing-room : I have klosen him there three hours : there are two sofas in the drawing roo:,) and two windows : in the hunting season, about Norettib.ar,. 1.813, witness saw the two blinds do Wlls and looked is at the window : Lord MiddLtou was on the sofa, with his head appaiently lying on Mrs. Knight's left arm. isasoe..." Can you take upon yourself to say, for certainty, it was so ?—A. "No, I cannot." Jutiod- 44 Ti,is cornett to nothing." The witness then statesi, that un one occasion a Gentleman called whin Lord Middleton was there, and asked if Mrs. Knight was at home ? He said yes, and swot to inform his mistre.4. Opening the du os Mrs. Knight bludied more than common, and Lord Middleton, turning towards the fire, appeared to be adjusting his dress : witness told her there was a ge n. demon in waiting. She said, for God's sake don't let Lim in; who is it ? Witness said Mr.eliffoisl—