The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1805-08-06 00:00:00

•

contained more contradietory matter, ot more use-
less verbiage: than this did : however, all the atten-
tion he was able to hestnw on it, had not induced
him to alter the opinion he had before stated;
namely, that the demurrer must be allowed. As
to these Defendants, he did not think there was any
pretence for the Plaintiff applying; fora discovery or
relief; in his opinion, there would not be a greater
nuisance than a Court of Equity, if any man could
be called on through it, to lay the tide deeds of hi,
estate on the table, for the no,peetion of the curious.
His Lordship then observed on the points of the
c ; and was of opinion, on the whole, t?•at this
Bill w• s not more serviceable to the Plaintiff, as is
was ammdedi than it. was before it was amended,
and that therefore the demurrer inti,t be allowed,
and the Bill dismissed.

SARTLLLOT O. easexca.
This was a deniurrer to a bill filed fer the rtirpnse
of perpetuating the testimony of witnesses. The hill
stated that the Plaintiff was married in May 1783,
and that, on his marriage, there was a settlemer
of 1501. on Mrs. Bartellot, remainder to Paintiff,
for life, and remainder, in fee, to the issue of the
marriage. The Plaintiff and his wife lived tnee-
ther without haying issue, until the year I7sti, when
the lady eloped with Captain Hawker, the I ),•krid-
ant. Sixteen months after this, Mrs. :1. was broinht
lu ocd, but no allots was cononeticcd agai .st t!):!
Defendant, until 1790, nor was the di. "Ace, a tnewa
et Mom. °Stained until 1798. This bill was filed in
1601, to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses, who
would prove, that there had been no access between
the Plaintiff and his wite, from the tune of her
elopement in 1786, to the birth of the child, 16
months after. The °tele& of the hill was to pre-
vent the infant hereafter from asserting its legiti
mace, and, after the death of the present Plaintiff,
claiming the property settled on the issue of his
marriage. The Defendant demurred to the bill, on
the ~round, that the faits had not been set forth,
with respell to the place where the Pla miff' lived,
during the 'Mac of the elopement, and the birth of
the child.
Mr. Wtxuarmat., on the part of the Plaintiff,
submitted, that. in framing bits to perpetuate the
testimony of witnesses, there was no occasion to
state the whole of the cue, and that, in this in.
stance, it was fully sufficient to state, that the
Plaintiff's wife had el yed from Canterbury, and
that there wis ne access between them after, with-
out stating the different places where Mr. and Mrs
B. reside-4, before the birth of the child. fl. ac-
know:edged, that ; ni eft have been clearer t.•
have stated it ie 'oat meaner, but then the Defend.
ant coull not he taken by surprise, as he had the
power or interrogating the diffe:-.lt witnesses pro-
duced by the Plaintiff, relative, to the different
places the hushan l and wife resided in. during the
sixteen immediately after the elopement.
The :,ORD Cii ,NCILLOR said, there were some
eases of this nature, its which every particular had
been stated, but there were other cases, where tht:re
child be no occasion to go int, particulars ; such as
that which was lately before the House of Lards,
where a gen.leman had been at sea for two years,—
and, on his return, his lady resented him with a
child. In thi,, it was sufficient to state the non-ac-
cess, the husband being at sea ; but, in the present
case, where both husband and wife lived in En --
lAA, he thought it would have been hut proper, ti,
state, whether y lived in the same town or coun-
ty. The fall to be proved, according to the state-
ment in the bill, was a negative raft. namely, that
there was no access ; whereas, if it had been stated
that the Plaintiff was in one place, and his wife in
another, it would have been sufficient.
Mr. WLTHIRALL con:iiitmd urging that the pre-
sent statement in the bi:l was sufficient, and con-
cluded by saying, that noa-access in law cJt lied all
inference a it h it sufficient to establish the fad) of their
net being in each ot.:er's company.
Phe LORD CHANCLLLOR said, that formerly the
legal inference was, that non.access signified not
within the four seas ; but that supposition is now
done away, and the present law considers that a
man may be within the tour seas, and not be near
his wife.

Mr. Ainaa, on the part of the Defendant, sup-
ported the demurrer, and said the bill must evi-
dently fall, as it did not state the fats of the case,
and wkere the Plaintiff and his wife lived after the
elopement : by the statement in the present bill, for
aught he knew. the Plaintiff might bring witnesses
to prove that he lived in the same horse with his
wife, without having access ; he therefore hoped
that the bill would be dismissd.
The Loan CHAHcal.Loa said this was a very im-
p ,rtant case, and it was the duty of the Court to
pity attention to the rights of the minor! who, for
anv th:ng that yet appeared, might be legitimate,
and consequently entitled to the property. His
Lordship then went over the different fads of the
case, and concluded by saying, that be thought the
best mode of proceeding was to give the Plaintiff an
opportunity, without prejudice to the case, to amend
the bill, and to permit the Defendant to amend his
demurrer, or pot is a new one, as he was advised
wheu he saw the amended bill.