The Sun.
London, England, 1819-01-20 00:00:00

EXTRAORDINARY CASE.

As we gave but a vet y brief Report, on Satur-
day last, relative to a cause not only of import-
ance to LEGITIMATE FIEIRs to PROPERTY of every
description, but as exhibiting conduct on the part
of thOse who, front their condition in life, might
be expected to act with greater regard to libe-
rality as well as justice, we conceive it to be our
duty to present a more ample statement of this
must extraordinary case. We have therefore
taken the following Report from THE BRITISH
Feiss of the same duty; for though we differ
‘Aidely from that Paper in political opinions, yet
we rely ott the accuracy of its statements in all
other respects. We have only added a Note
for the purpose of illustration, and an arFt-
DAvyr, which we some .time ago took from a
Morning Paper that contained an account of for-
mer proceedings on this question, a question
which indeed is so important with respect to the
RIGHTFUL SUCCESSION TO PROPERTY, that it can-
not but he in the highest degree interesting to
every class of the community, since none can
foresee how far he may be affected by the preclu-
sion of LEGITIMATE INHERITANCE.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, LINCOLN'S-INN,
FRIDAY, JANUARY 1.5.

ILLEGITIMACY.
KNIGHT AND OTHERS V. HENRY CHARLES KNIGHT,

AN INFANT.

Mr. WILLIS, junior Counsel for the Plaintiffs,
stated, that this was a hill filed by his clients for
a discovery, and to perpetuate the testimony of
the defendant's illegitimacy, Under the follot~•ing

circumstances :
The late Earl of Cattierlough devised by
his will, dated the 11th of February, 1772,
to the plaintiff, Robert, certain estates for
life, without impeachment of waste, wilt re-
mainder to his n►ale issue in tail, and in default
thereof to the plaintiff, Henry Raleigh Knight,
and his male issue ; and in default thereof to re-
vert back to the daughters of the plaintiff, Robert.
The plaintiff, Robert, after the death. of the tes-
tator, because possessed of the estates, as tenant
for life, and on June 12, 1791, married Franey.,
Dormer, and bad issue one son, since deceased,
and two daughters, now living. lii the year 1804,
some differences arose between the plaintiff and
Isis wife, and they agreed to live separate and not
to cohabit together, and a deed to (bat effect was
executed, by which he allowed her an annuity of
800/. per annum for her separate use, and the
Right Hon. Charles Lord Dormer was appointed
trustee under the deed for Mrs. Knight, ever since
which time they had iivetl apart from each other.
On the 7th of October, in the year 1813, Mrs.
Knight was delivered of a male c hill* (the de-
fendant), and she list; him baptised in the parish
church of St, Mary-le-hone, on the 21st of May,
1814, by the name of Henry Charles, the child of

Charles and Honor aces Knight, of the parish
of St. Nlary-le-bone, and is now known by the
name of U. C. Knight, and is residing with his
mother neat• Gerrard's Cross, in the county Of
Bucks. 'lnc bill then charged that the defendant
and his mother pretend that lie is the lawful son of
the plaintiff, Robert, and is entitled to an estate
tail in the estates bequeathed by tie Earl of Ci
therlough, in preference to the other plaintiffs. It
appeared that the plaintiffs, Henry Raleigh Knight,
and Charles Raleigh Knight, filed a bill in that
Court in Trinity Term, 1814. and a commission
was directed to examine witnesses, hut they now
set forth that they have discovered various other
facts which they were then ignorant of, the tes-
timony of which it was very material to be per-
petuated. The present bill then prayed that wit-
nesses might he examined under a commission, so
as their testimony might he perpetuated as to the
illegitimacy of the defendant. To which bill the
defendant put in a general demurrer, on which it
came to be argued before the Court.
Mr. AGAR, Counsel for the Defendant, stated,
this was a bill of discovery. The first question
to be considered was, whether a person could per-
petuate 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 commis-
sion, 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, closed the corn-
mission. If witnesses were allowed to be exa-
mit►ed against the infant, the defendant, they
must be exparte, as he was without a friend, and
was unable to protect himself. It was, however,
impossible that a bill filed to perpetuate evidence
could stand, Without it stated what they in-
tended to examine witnesses to. But there was
another reason why the demurrer ought to be
allowed, which was, that one of the plaintiffs
was an infant, and he did not sue by his next
friend.

The Vicc-CuANcELLott—" Then it ought to
be a special demurrer as to that point ?"
Mr. AGIII Said, he did not think it necessary,
as it was a rule of Court that an infant was not
entitled to relief without he appeared by his next
friend.

The Vice-CHANcri..coa " Your demurrer
states, that none of the plaintiffs are entitled to
relief by their bill, and you nOw admit they all
have the right bnt the infant. It is perfectly
clear, then, that there must be a special demurrer.
Jr was the same in the case of Lord Cholmonde-
Icy and Clinton; there the demurrer would have
been good if special, but it was OVE,"I ruled because
it was not."

Mr. Itour-e.LL followed on the same side as Mr.
Agar.

Mr. 'WINGFIELD, Counsel for the plaintiffs,
.stated he bad to support the bill.
The VICE-CHANCELLOR—" The first difficulty
you have to get over, 'which is the allegation in

• Under the name of JORDAN, representing lierself as the
%\ its of a Captain JORDAN.