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

the bill, it, that divers facts have come to the
knowledge of the plaintiffs, without stating what
the facts were."
Mr. WINGFIELD said, in his humble judgment,
it would be new in Courts of Equity to state spe-
cific facts in a bill of this nature. Suppose the
present case stood without being prejudiced by the
first bill, the question would turn on access or
non-access of the plaintiff (Robert) with Mrs.
Knight, from 1804 to the year 1813, and during
which time he had no access to her, yet the de-
fendant was born ; the intent then of the bill was
to examine witnesses to that 'fac►. If it was
necessary to state every fact in the hill, they.
could not examine witnesses only to what the
bill contained, but by the rule of the Court there
was a general interrogatory exhibited to wit-
nesses, beside the facts in the bill, calling on them
to declare their knowledge of all the transactions
in the cause. Was he then to be told, however
complicated the facts were, that they ought to be
set out in the bill ?• The cases stated by the
Learned Counsel on the other side, as to the
right of way and right of common, were not in
point—tor, in such cases, he was aware it was
not sufficient to say that there was a right of way
or right of common, but that the specific right
must he set forth on the record : but in the pre-
sent hill they set forth a specific fact which they
wanted to prove, intercourse or non-intercouse

between the plaintiff, Robert, and his wife Fran-
ces, from the year 1804 to 1813. On the hearing
of the first bill, the Lord Chancellor did not think

it was necessary that all the facts should be spe-
cified in the record—why, then, should it be tie,-
cessary in the second bill ? It certainly was a
new objection, and one that could not stand.—

The Learned Counsel had said, that their client
could not know to what tacts we intended to ex-
amine the witnesses; he would tell them it was
to the access or iron-access of the parties to each
other. Did they want it to he specified in the
bill that on such a day, and in such a month, the
plaintiff, Robert, was so engaged, that he could
not have a communication with Mrs. Knight ?
The VICE•CHANCELLOR Suppose the
Robert, was not a party to the suit, might

tot the persons in remainder prove the divorce

which took place between him and Mts. Knight,
and would not that be taking the defendant by

surprise ?"
Air. WINGFIELD said, he would then take it in
another view : the plaintiff, Hobert, was not
party to the first bill, the children of .Henry had
come in essay since, and, as to them, the pre-
sent Was a new suit, and" if he could prove- that
only one of the party had come into essay since
that time, the general demurrer could not stand.

It was a mistake that they could have the bene-
fit of the proceedings under the first suit, as they
came then into Court for the first time; they
had stated on the record the circumstances of the
separation, the birth and christening of the de-
fendant ; would it then be said that they had not
a right to examine witnesses to the new facts, and
perpetuate their testimony ? Under these consi-
derations, he hoped his Honour would disallow
the demurrer.

Mr. HEALD followed on the same side, and
said, the first question was, whether the patties
to the first snit could file a new bill on new facts,
he looked at
to perpetuate testimony ?. The way
it was, that it was not necessary for every person
interested to be before the Court, where a bill
was filed to perpetuate testimony ; for instance,
in the case of Lord Dursley it was determined that
any person, how tar off he might he interested,
had a right to file a bill to perpetuate evidence ;
then what was in ibis case to prevent the plain-
tiff, Georgiana Knight, from examining into the
illegitimacy, 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 woman separated from her husband, and
if the testimotty was not perpetuated he might
hereafter claim to be legitimate.
Mr. XVILLts, on the same side, said it had been
stated by the Learned Counsel, in support of the
demurrer, that the commission in the first suit

bad been protracted, but he bad not stated by
whom. Ile would tell him—by Mrs. Portman,

the sister of that notorious woman Mrs. Knight,
who was at that time in France, ont of the juris-
diction of the Court, where she threatened to re-
main until the commission was closed, and she
was the assistant and confidant in the infamous
transaction. As to the statement that the de-
fendant was an infant and had no friend to pro-
tect him, it was not true, for he had his reputed
father. The trial of Knight and Lord Middleton
must be fresh in the memory of every man. He
had r►o hesitation in saying that this demurrer was
put in by the Noble Defendant in that action to
protect the interest of the infant defendant *. It
had been said that there was persecution on -the
part of Mr. Knight ; on the contrary, his con-
(lint had been most generous to an abandoned
woman. All he asked was to perpetuate the
testimony of the defendant's illegitimacy, at his
own cost,

The VICE•CNANCBLLOR observed, he was of
opinion, that the allegation in the bill was by
much too general, therefore he could not sustain
the bill.

The demurrer allowed and bill dismissed.

* AFFIDAVIT.

MAJOR-GENERAL KNIGHT AND OTHERS V. KNIGHT,

BEFUHR THE, LORI) CHANCELLOR.

Mr. AGAR, on the part of the defendant, moved
that the examination of witnesses in this cause
might be closed. lie stared that the hill was filed
in Trinity Term, -1814, by the plaintiffs, against
the defendant, Henry Charles Knight, an infant,
to perpetuate testimony to prove the illegitimacy
of the defendant.

That the plaintiffs had filed affidavits in oppo-
sition to the motion, stating that they had yet se-
veral witnesses to examine, and amongst o►her
persons the Right Honourable Henry, Baron
Middleton, and the Honourable Mrs. Portman.
That an action had been brought by Mr.
Knight, against Lord Middleton, for criminal
conversation with his Wite, (the mother of the
defendant) some months previous to the birth of
the defendant, in which action a verdict passed
for Lot d Middleton, and contended, that the
plaintiffs hod only to prove non-access of the l►us-
band, and that Lord Middlet9n's and Mrs. Port-