The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1819-01-16 00:00:00

it would be tivw iu Courts of Equity In viatc tlte-
citic facts ill a bill of duioHiurr. Suppivir the
preyetit cote %fond without being prejudiced by the
first bill,
arrays df the Plaintiff (Robert) with
Kitightr
the rittevtimi would turn 00 81.4:001 or 000..
from 18114 to the year 1813, and distill 2 which
tulle he had 110 :ICCY.B 10 her, yet the Defendant
Wll4 born. the intent thei. of the bill was 10 00111116 e
witneviei to that Ito t. if it was itecetwary to rtitte
every fact in the 1011, they could out examine wit-.
10.1,,r8 only to what the bill contained, but by lite
rule of the Court 'herr Wa% 8 genera) tnterrootory
exhibited to wititr...e., beside the facia iu MI bill,
calling oil them ru declare their knowledge of all the
transactions in the canal.. ;IN he then to he told,

however coitipheatctl the facts were, thst they ought
to he set out to the bill ? The ca.-es stated by the
Lewin-4 Counsel. on the utn•r side, us to the

io
eight of %ray arid right of conimoo. were not
point—fur, in *ads eil6r"4. lot WAS Itworr It W 4
110 t 1114C1rilt to say that there WY% a right of way
"r right of common, but that the iiperitie light
inua.t be art forth ou the record: but in the prebein

bill they set forth it specific fact which they wanted
to prove, intercourse o► tion-ititerrouil.e between the
Plaintiff, Robert, alai his wife Frances!, front the
year ItiO4 to 1813. On the hearni4 of the tart
Ka!, the Lord Chancellor did nut think it was ne-
cessary that all the facts should be specified in the
record—why, then, should it he fl.cnrlry in the
second bill It vt...0.1‘)1y wee 0 flew otojection, Hid
cone the could so.,t stand. The Learned Counsel
had said, that their client could nut know to what
facts we intended to examine the witnesses ; lie
would till them it was to the IleCC*B or flou-acr,,ss

of the .parties to each other. ail they wstot it to
be specified in the bill that on ,tielt a -day, hod iii
such a month, the Plaintiff. Hobert, was su en-
gaged, that he could not have a tommunicatiou
with Jlhs. Knight ?
The VICE-CHANCELLOR-4' Suppose the Plain-
tiff, Robert, was not a party to the gust, might not
the Iltrfolls in remainder prove the divorce which
took Wart between him and Mrs. knight, and
would nut that be takiiig the Defendant by sur-
prise ?"
:11r. Wri4en:l.n said lie *mild then take it its
another view : the Plaintiff, Robert, was not a party
to the first bill, the children of !henry, had come
in essay biller, and, as to them, the pieseist was a
new suit, and if lie could prove that only one el
the party had come into essay since that time, the
general demurrer could not staud. It was it mis-
take tl,at they could have the benefit of the pro-
ceeding. under the first suit, as they came then
into Curt f..r the first time ; they had stated on the
record the circumstances of the separation, the birth
and ehristeisiii,g of the Defendant; would it then
be said that they had not a right to examine on-
naves to the new facts. and perpetuate their testi-
mony ? U oder these considerations, lie hoped his
honour would disallow the demurrer.
Mr. HEALD followed on the saute side, and
said, the licit question was, whether she parties to
the first suit could -file a new bill on stew facts, to
perpetuate testimony ? The way lie Inked at it
was, that it was not necessary for every person in-
terested to be before the Court, where a hill was
filed to perpetuate testimony; for installer, in the
rase of Lord Durslry it was determined that any
person, how far off he might be interested, had a
rir,lit to tile a bill to perpetuate evidence ; then
what was in this case to prevent the Plaintiff;
Georgians Knight, from examining into the illegi-
timacy. although the words " new facts" were in
the bill? it was on the record, that the Defendant
was illegitimate, he being born of a married we--
man Separated from her husband, and if the testi-
mony was not perpetuated lie might hereafter claim
to be legitimate.
Mr WlLt.ts, on the same side, said it had been
stated by the Learned Counsel; in support of the
demurrer, that the commission iii the first suit had
been protracted, but he had not stated by whom.
He would tell him—by Mrs. Portman, the sister of
that notorious woutin Mrs. Knight, who was at that
time in France; Out of the yurisidittion of the
Court, where she threatened to remain until the
commission was closed. and she was die assistant
and confiduut in the infamous transaction. As
to the statement that the Defendant was ass
infant and had tin friend to protect him, it
was not true. for he had his repined father.
The ttial of Knight amid Lord Middleton must be
fresh in the memory of every man. Ile had nu
hesitation in saying that this demurrer was pot in
by the Noble Defeudint iv that action to protect
the interest of the infant Defeutlant. It had been
said that there was persecution on the part of Mr.
Knight : on the contrary, his conduct had been
most generous to an abandoned woman. All
he asked wall to perpetuate the testimony of the
Defendant's illegitimacy, at his own cost.
The Vica-CtiaticeiAna—" It would have Men
more prudent, Mr. Willis, fur those that instructed
you, not to base desired you to state the facts you
have done ; whether they are true or false, they are
scandalous ; they are not on the record, and there-
fore cannot bear on the question before me."
Mr. 11'11.1.15-11 It was not my intention to hare
stated them, hut the Learned Counsel, in support
of the demurrer, said we had not any new facts
to put on the record, I only mentioned what I did
to shew that we had, and it was only out of re-
spect to the Court they had not been set forth in the
bill."

The VICIL-CUANCELLOR abseiled, he was of
opinion, that the allegation in the bill was by twach
too general, therefore he could nut susiaiii the bill.
Thadenaurrer allowed and bill dismissed.

COURT OF KINGS BENCII, Guzumax,
1111110 AT, JANUARY 16.

Adjourned Sittings after Miehaelmato Term before
Chief Jostler ABBOTT mid special Juries.

VATED4OII mid Co. V. WARD.

The Plaintiffs its this rase are niesehmas residing
in Quebec,. and they brought their action against
the Defendant. sr dwner of a amyl called thr
William sad Mary, to recover from him the
of .tO5l. 9a. due for money lent, and oohs fur-
nished. It appeared, that, its the year 11117. the
Defend ant chartered the ship Whom and Mary,
commanded by Mr. Barrow, Irons Loudon to Que-
bec. Not havitsg a correspondent st the latter
place, he wrote a letter, in the seine of Mr. Fos, a