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

shall have nrea,i ,0 to notice other instances of the inferrer.
mire of parti7.,Nentaly rrieuill, in which they were the prfa.
eipal actors, that have operatiil ititterially to our &indent'.
iage!!! • • • • • •_I have, in my endearsim 111 meet
your wishes, eaotiously avoided personality, and to 'he ne-
resoiary statement of aennene,s I umall stop offence to env
isidividimi or party that ins adventured in 11w prosecution
of
• our cause. I commit the vindication of my good intentions
Id' your protecting kindness, cud have the honour to be,
111:5 respect arid esteem,
My Dear Sir,
)'our very faithful Serena,
EDWA RD HAY.

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, Ltrcowes

FRIDAY. JANVATIT 15.

The LORD CHANCELLOR did not sit this snort:-
big, as was expected, this being the first seal be-
fore Term. His Lordship sent word that he should
sit on Mondry, but that lie would open the seal
at his house in Bedford-square, this day, prepara-
tory to his Honour the Vicc-CHANcELLos hearing
motions to-morrow (this day).
Ilia Honour the VICE-CHA NCF.LLOR Pat at h3ll-
- tell o'clock, and observed, that he would give
judgment in the following cases on M lay :
v. Moyer—llamson v. Mortimer—Caps v.
AVoolcutt—Pickard v. Roberts—and Denwurtlty
v. Cloutier.

VICE.CHANCELLOR'S COURT, tiscoues.boi,

FRIDAY, JANty Asir 15.

11.I.F.GITIITACY.

ROBERT KNIGHT aNd GEORGIANk IVITGTIT, a" in-

/ant, by her next friend, V. HENRY CHARLES
KNIGIIT, an infant.

111 r. ‘Vtt.t.ts, junior Counsel for the Plaintiff.,
stated, flirt tlos was a 101 l filed by his eli•nts for a
sio•enyery, nod to perpetuate the testimony of the
Delet.lntit's under the following eir-

citor.titoces :—The lair Earl of eatheriough, other-
-

wise Carlow, tlrvised by his will, dated the I'll) of
February, 177.2, to the Plooststi; Robert, cerroits

estates Im lite. without impeachment of waste. with
rettiiiimler to his male issue iii tail, and in default

thereof to the Plaintiff, Ilenry 'Weigh Knight,
and Ins nude ioue ; and in default thereof to the
inter, of Robert aid Henry Raleigh Knight, and

tlitir male 14%11Y, and in di:fault thereof in revert
In to the daughters of the Plaintiff. Robert.
The Plaintiff, Itulwrt, after the death of the tes-
tator, became possessed of the estates, as tenant for
hie, told on 11, 1791, married Frances Dor-
mer, and had issue one sun, since deceased, and two

daughters, now living. In the yrsr 1804, some
differences arose between the Plaintiff and his wile,

and they agreed to live separate and not to cohabit
together, and • deed to that effect was executed,
by which he allowed her an annuity of 8001.. per
annum for her separate use, and the Right Hon.
Charles lord Dormer, was appointed trustee under
the deed for Mrs. Knight, ewer sitter which time
they had lived apart from each other. On the 7th
of October, in the year 1813, Mrs. Kuigh. was
delivered of a male child (the Deltaiclaut), and she
had him baptised in the parish church of St. Mary-
le-hone, on the elst of May, Isl 4, by the name
of Henry Charles, the child of Charles and Honor
Frances Knight, of the parish of St. Mary-le-bone,
and is now known by the mime of H. C. Knight,
and is residing with his mother near Gerrard's Cross,
in the county of Bucks. The bill then charged
that the Defendant and his mother p►etend that he
is the lawful son of the Plaintiff, Robert, and is
entitled to all estate tail in the estates bequeathed

• by the Fail of Cattierlough, in preference to the
I other I'laintiWs. It appeared that the Plaintiffs,
henry Raleigh Knight, Charles Raleigh Knight,
Tine Knight, now Fuller, and Frances Elizabeth
Knight, filed a bill in that Court in Trinity Term,
ISIS, and a commission was directed to examine
witnesses, but they now set forth that they have
discovered various other facts which they were then
ignorant of, the testimony of which it was yam
material to be perpetuated. The present bill
then prayed that witnesses might he examined un-
der a commission, so as their testimony might be
perpetuated a. to the illegitimacy of the Defendant.
To which bill the Defendant put in a general de-
murrer, on which it came to be argued before the
Court.

Mr. AGAR, Counsel for the Defendant, stated,
tins was a bill of discovery. The first question to be
consideied was, whether a person could perpetuate
evidence to facts which he did not set out in his
bill. It only stated, that they had found out new
facts since the close of the last comMisiion, which
was a very protracted one, there was application
after application made to the Lord Chancellor to
enlarge the time for keeping the commission open ;
at last his Lordship, after hearing a considerable
discussion, clissed the cotamissioii. If witnesses
were allowed to be examined against the infant,
the Defendant, they must be exparte, as he Was
without a friend, and was unable to protect him-
self. It was, however, impossible that a bill filed
to ripetuate evidence could stand, without it
stated what they intended to examine witnesses to.
Rut there was *wither reason why the demurrer
ought to be allowed, which was, that one of the
Plaintiffs was an infant, Dud he did not sue by
his next friend.
The VICE-CnaticEttoz—" Then it ought to
; be a special demurrer as to that point ?"
Mr. AGAR said, be did not think it necessary, as
it was a rule of Court that an infant was not entitled
1 to relief without he appeared by his next friend.
The Vic[-Cusacti.t.ott---" Your demurrer
stater, that none of the Plaintiffs are entitled to re-
1 lief by their bill, and you now admit they all have
the right but the infant. It is perfectly clear, then,
that there must be • special demurrer. It Was the
saute in the case of Lord Cholminideley and Clio-
-1 ton ; there the demurrer would have been good if
special, but it was overruled because it was not."
Mr. Rootst.t. followed on the same side as Mr.
Agar.
I Mr. WINGFIELD, Counsel fur the Plaintiffs, stab-
! ed he had to support the bill.
The Vice-Cusitcsi.tout" The first difficulty
you ban to get over, which is the allegation in the
! hill, is, that diger' facts have come to the knowledge
lof the Plaintiffs, without stating what the Wets
were."

....
kir. Wmanum said, iu his humble judgment,