The National Register.
London, England, 1814-12-11 00:00:00

DEC. 11.

having been releasedlimn a French pri,on upon the late peace, had
got intoxicated on as illumination night in London, and had coin
mated some assault, for which he was undergoing an examination
at Bow-street before Sir N. Conant and Mr. Sketchley, the Magis-
trates, when Mr. Richard.on, the prosOentor came in, and took his
seat with his brother Magistrates. The defendant abused Mr. Staf-
ford, the clerk, who was taking down the examinations of the wit-
nesses against him ; and upon the prosecutor (who sat near him) re-
monstrating with him, the defendant assaulted Lim, attempting to
drag him out, and challenging him. Upon being told by the other
Magistrates that the prosecutor was also a Magistrate, and upon the
prosecutor's telling the defendant that he had been to.sea himself
(as he had seven years). the defendant wished to make it up with
him, and offered to shake hands with him. hut the prosecutor was
retlised. It did not appear that the defendant knew the prosectitoi
was a Magistrate in the execution of his duty, when he assaulted
him. so that he could only be convicted of a common assault ; but
it did appear most plainly that he was very drunk, and had offered
an ample apology by his attorney ; bait Lord Ellenhorough held the
assault committed ; and that a gentleman, who had his feelings
wounded by one, however noble, was entitled to expect that that
nob!emon should descend from his rank, and make.a personal repa-
ration to those wounded feelings. The defendant was therefore,
under Isis Lordship's direction, found guilty ; hut his Lordship hoped
that before the next term such an arrangement would be made, as
that the Court should hear uo more of the case.

COURT OF COMMON PLE‘S, MONDAY, DEC.S.

KNIGHT, ESQ. V. LORD IKIDDLETON.--(CRIM. CON.)

This was an aetion under very peculiar circumstances, The
plaintiff. as it appeared by the testimony of one of his own witneses
had in the year 18.17, brought an action against Colonel Fuller for
criminal conversation with his wife, and had received large da-
mages. He aftewards went into Doctors' Commons, with the view of
obtaining a divorce, but this was resisted on the ground of a collu-
sion with Col. Fuller, and lie then thought proper to withdraw the
proceeding,. Ile had, however, separated himself from his wife
since that time. In November, 1813, Mrs. Knight was delivered
of a child. The plaintiff conceived Loud Middleton to be the father
of it, and brought his action against his Lordship accordingly.—The
evidence in Nippon of the plaintiff's case went on t,vo grounds.
The first was to skew snclt familiarities between the defendant and
Mrs. Knight as to raise a presumption that the criminal intercourse
had taken place. The second ground, and what was most relied on
was, that the conduct ()Mord Middleton had been surd', as that the•
Jary must believe hi n to be the father of the child, and conso-
nnntly that he must have committed adultery with Mrs. Knight.
Upon the first point, several servants of Mrs. Knight proved, that
Lord Nliddleton was in the habit of visiting her at her residence at
Hampton•cottage, in Warwickshire. It did not appear, however,
that there was any thing very particular in those visits. as his Lord-
ship was in the habit of intimacy with her father, Lord Dormer, and
her whole family. His Lordship had also frequently visited her
at her residence in Manchester-street, London. Lord Middleton,
however, seldom visited her after it was dark, and never slept there.
Other gentlemen had also visited her as well as his Lordship. The
circumstances of suspicion on those visits were very slight. On the
second point there was nothing proved, except that Lord Middleton
had called at Mary-le.hone church to see the register of baptism of
the child, and had taken an extract of it. This circumstance was
aeconnted for, by its having appeared that he had been reported to
be the father of the child, and an action threatened affainst him. It
appeared also that he had been once seen coming front the house
uhere the child was nursed.

Serjeant Shepherd, on the part of the delen.ldnt, submitted that
there vk as no evidence to go to a Jury, and that the ',Uinta must
be nonsnited.

The Chief Justice said, the evidence was indeed extremely
slender, but he thought it better that the case should go to the Jury.
Scrjeant Shepherd then stated to the Jury. that if, under those
circumstances they were inclined to find for the plaintiff, the smalle it
coin known in this country v (mid be sufficient to give as damages.
He contended, however. that no circumstances at all were proved
which could warrant a Jury in finding that an adnlterons connec-
t:on had taken place between his Lorthihip and Mrs. Knight. If
the lady, in her state of separation from her husband, had produced
a child, it was evident that she had committed adultery with some-
dy or other ; but that was no proof against Lord Middleton, any
in re than against any other gentleman who visited her. As to the
ci:annstances which had been stated, there was nothing- which

*23

could give them a right to infer that ht anv pariletilar time or p:aee
this adulterous connection had taken place.
The Chief Justice began his charge to the Jury by informing
them, that it had been held by Lord Kenyon, and hall since been
ruled by the Court of King's Bench, that as the action for erins. con.
was an action to recover damages for being deprived of the aid anti
comfort of the society of a wife, a hash,►nd
that had ...yoluntdrilv
separated himself from that society could not m fintain this action.
In the case, however, where this doctrine was hod, the separation
had been a regular one. As it did not appear that the seohratiou
here was a regular one, he should allow the case to go to them.
giving at the same time a power to the defendant's Counsel (to case
their verdict should be for the plaintiff ) to move the Court of Com-
mon Pleas for a nonsuit on this ground. Elk Lordship then re-
capitulated the evidence, and pointed out the slightness of the
grounds upon which the adulterous connection had been inferred.—
The Jury, without retiring, found a verdict for the defendant.

DEC. 6.
MAGN AY r. BU It LEIGH.

This was an action to recover sixty guineas,- the price paid for a
horse &ledged to be unsound. The plaintiff, after having pur-
chased the horse from the defendant, sold it to a Mr. Christopher,
who returned it as unsound, being what is called a crib-biter. The
plaintiff then returned it to the defoliant, .and brought his action.
—On the part of the plaintiff a number of witnesses were called,
who stated, that in their judgment this crib-biting, or biting the
manger, was a great imperfection in a horse; some of them con-
ceived that it was a sign of bad lungs, sod that it ended in the horse
becoming broken winded. One of them even conceived that a
crib-biting horse must have his lungs differently placed from what
they were in a sound horse. Two witnesses mentioned, that a crib-
biting horse wasted more of his oats than another horse, and conse-
gnently did not receive the same nutriment from his food. One
witness, however, allowed that he had horses of that description
which never got broken-winded. Others confessed that this was
sometimes only a trick or habit of a horse, without any unsound-
ness discoverable in any other way. There being ao farther proof
as to the unsoundness of the horse than this habit of biting the
manger, and one of the Jurors having expressed a doubt (in whiclt
his Lordship seemed to coincide) of such proof being sufficient to
establish the alledged unsoundness, the Counsel for the dcfendanr
were not called on to go into their case, and the plaintiff (IS non-
suited.

Thursday. in the Court of Common Peas, Guildhall, an action
was tried, Vernon v. Miles, to recover a compensation in datwiges
for an assault and false imprisonment. The plaint& reside: at
Stock, near Ingatestone, in Essex; the Defendant is one of the
proprietors of Gsrraway's Cotree.house. The history of the atrair
is shortly this: Vernon, who frequented Garraway's, was sern
Se-
veral times to sneak away, after ordering saudwitches, eze. with-
our-paying his reckoning. He was watched and detected on the
12d of February, and sent to the Poultry Compter as a swindler,
but was afterwards bailed out and di,ehari!ed : for this impri•ou.
meat the Action was now brought.—The Cnief Justice holding that
the defendant had no legal right to take the plaintiff i»t,, cu>todv,
the Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, with One Farthing Da-
mages!

DEAN AND CHAPTER OF ST. PAUL'S.