Star.
London, England, 1808-12-24 00:00:00

LAW M'TELLIGENCIL

COURT OF CiIANCERY, DEC. tt.
The Court was occupied the greater part of the day
the further hearing of the question we mentioned
iesterday, ex parte BOEWDERY. In which the Assig-
nees of a Bankrupt sought to-have the proof of a debt
which had been admitted by the Commissioners, ex-
"tinged from the-Coramission, on the ground that the
debt was struck at by the Statute of Limitations.
Mr. FoNai.4NQuE, Mr. HART, and Mr. M.DocKs,
were heard. in support of the debt, and Sir SAMUEL
't)MI LIN and Mr. WEATHEnALL for the Assignees.
The decision was postponed till to-morrow.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS, DEC. 23.
LORI) DORMER V. KNIGHT.
This was an action brought by Lord Dormer, as
'rustee of his sister, Mrs. Knight, to compel the
tyment of a sum due upon an annuity granted her,
• deed, by her husband, the Hon. Francis Knight,
the cccasion of their separation in 1804.
Mr. Serjeant SHEPHERD, for the plaintiff, stated,
that the defendant and his wife, not living happily to-
gether, had agreed to
,separate. The defendant had
coJenanted to allow his wife 8001. per annum, by one
deed. But there was another deed by which the stun
of 8001. a year wit to be reduced to 4001. in case
Mrs. Knight associated or cohabited, tcc. with Col.
Fuller, a Captain of a• company in the Coldstream
regiment of Guards. Mr. Knight had not only re,
&iced the payment to the lower suit, but had even
kept back a part of tharinferior allowance and he
was instructed to say, that the cause of this was, that
Mrs. Knight had refused to consent to a suit of di-
vorce, anti thus become a party to her own disgrace.
If this was true, his conduct *as of the basest kind.
He would prove the execution of the deeds, and he
defied the defendant to she* that Mrs. Knight had
lost her right to the larger annuity, by any criminal
interOurse with Colonel Fuller, anti then the plain-
tiff; as her trustee, would be entitled to the whole of
the claim.
This proof altogether consisted of admissions by
the defendant, who allowed the execution of the deeds,
and that no more had been paid than the different
sums,stated by the plaintiff.
Mr. Serjeant BEST, for the defendant, then addres-
sed the Jury, and in the course of his speech found
it necessary to state the particular circgtnstances,
which had given rise to these deeds. Mr. Knight,
previous to the year 1804, had strong reason to sus-
pect the fidelity of his ,wife, although he was not then
prepared with full proof. An action, however, had_
been commenced by him in the Court of King's
Bench, but ai he was doubtful whether he should
be
able to prove his wife's adultery in a Court of Jus-
tice, although he himself was fully satisfied of it, he
made a proposal to her and Colonel Fuller, that they
would allow judgment to go by default in the King's
Bench, and that he would allow Mrs. Knight the
annuity above mentioned, and 20001. out of 30001.
which she had brought him as a fortune ; stipulating,
however, that she should not keep company or asso-
ciate with Colonel Fuller, who was considered as her
paramour. To this the parties assented ; judgment
was allowed to go by default in the King's Bench.
and 70001. damages were awarded in the Sheriff's
Court. This sum Mr. Knight' restored to Colonel
Fuller ; and immediately upon this Mrs. Knight op.
posed the divorce in DoctorsConunons. The I)or-
trier family themselves had been highly sensible of
the generosity of Mr; Knight ; and yet this was the
husband whom his Learned Friend had been instruc-
ted to call base. lie characterized the conduct of
the opposite parties as abominable, in having abused
the generosity of Mr. Knight, and cheated him in
this transaction, by refusing to fulfil their bargain.—
In .addition to this, Mrs. knight and Colonel Fuller
wished to continue their intimacy, and yet to have
the larger sum. He would prove that Col. Fuller
and this unfortutsate woman had continued to asso-
ciate together, after the execution of the deeds. It
js'as not necessary for him to prove a criminal inter-
course from the time of the separation, but he would
prove the visits ( f Colonel Fuller to Mrs. kyiight,
and he would also prove the previous adultery. When
visits were ountinued after that the rest might laa pre-
sinned. The plaintiff would then, at all events, be
able to recover only the arrears of the inferior sum ;
but as the second deed had ma l..en put on the re-
cord .by the plaintiff, he submitted that there must be
a verdict for the defendant..
Sir Ississ.MANstleno, however, considered the se-
•-cond as part of the first, and therefore held that
there was no occasion for its being specially named
on the record 'by the
Anne Wharton was the first witness called. She
lived with Mrs. Knight after the separation, When
she resided in Gloucester Place' and in Baker-street.
She saw Colonel Fuller in the house with her mistress
two or three times, but knew of nothing, improper
• - having passed between them.
On' her cross.exaininatiOn by Mr. GAnuow, she
sstid that she had been sent for by Mr. Knight, who
said thattshe might do him service, but she, had per-
sisted that she knew nothing implerer in The conduct
of Mrs. Knight. Mr. Knight had offered her no
• inonej-, nor made any promise to do her a service.
John Ednor lived ass footman with Mrs. Knight,
during the year 1506 and part of 1807. Col. Fuller,
had often visited Mrs. Knight—be coold not tell the
number of times—it might be ten or twenty. He saw
no reason to suspect any criminal intercourse.. He
• had &ern him into the drawing-room Ss it is the 1
custom with visitors. •
To prove the pnevious adultery,
• • Mary Etches was called. SheVived in 1809 with
!qrs. Impey (Mr. Knight's sister) in Tatisurton- '
street. Mrs. Knight and Colonel . Fuller frequently
met at her Mistress's house. They were often in the
. parlour alone together with ,the door locked, while
her mistress was in the house, sometimes in the ad..
joining room. Ott one occasion the witness *lent up
to the parlour door, -which she found locked. • In a
short time Colonel Fuller opened it, not irnowing she
was immediately at the door. She instantly went iii
and saw Colonel Fuller
adjusting his dress, and Mrs.
Knight's dress in what she described. as a very tum-
bled-state. She did- not say any thing at the 'time
ahoit this, but thdught she lked got into a very odd
sort of house. • She oftettsaw Mrs. Knight going out
and etuningin, and alwaysvhen she went out sif the
'house 'after Cotaitel, Fuller had bon with her,' the
*CU she wore appeared Much rumpled.