APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



S97 



paid to her attornej', wliich she 

 received. He must take it for 

 granted, that payments to the 

 same amount had been previously 

 and regularly made by the hus- 

 band to her; for otherwise, as she 

 was living separate, she could not 

 have been enabled to have sup- 

 ported herself separately. The 

 payments, if regular, wouldamount 

 to 300/. ; and lie had no evidence 

 before him to show that 300/. a 

 year was not a fair and ample pro- 

 vision for this lariy, who by agree- 

 ment was living from him. Tak- 

 ing the facts to be that the hus- 

 band and wife had agreed to live 

 separate, and had done so upon 

 her receiving a separate mainte- 

 nance Irom him, though there was 

 no stipulation as to the exact sum, 

 and considering 300/. a year a 

 competent provision for a woman 

 living apart from her husband, he 

 was of opinion, that within the 

 principle of the doctrines laid 

 down, the husband «a£ not liable. 

 — Plaintiff nonsuited. 



Court of Common Pleas. — Mon- 

 day, Dec. b. — dim. Con. — Kviglif, 

 Esq. v Lord Middleton. — This was 

 an action under very peculiar cir- 

 cumstances. 1 he plaintiff, as it 

 appeared by the testimony of one 

 of his own witnesses, had, in the 

 year 1807, broui^ht an action 

 against Colonel Fuller for criminal 

 conversation with his wife, and 

 had received large damages. He 

 afterwards went into Doctors' 

 Commons, with the view of ob- 

 taining a divorce, but this was re- 

 sisted on the ground of collusion 

 with Colonel Fuller, and he then 

 thought proper to withdraw the 

 proceedings. He had, however, 

 separated himself from his wife 



since that time. In November, 

 181.3, Mrs. Knight was delivered 

 of a child. The plaintiff con- 

 ceived Lord Middleton to be the 

 lather of it, and brought his action 

 against his Lordship accordingly. 



The evidence in support of the 

 plaintiff's case went on two 

 grounds. The first was to show 

 such familiarities between the de- 

 fendant and 31rs. Knight as to 

 raise a presumption that the cri- 

 minal intercourse had taken place. 

 The second ground, and what was 

 most relied on, was, that tiie con- 

 duct of Lord Middleton had been 

 such as that the Jury must believe 

 him to be the father of the child, 

 and consequently that he must 

 have committed adultery with 

 Mrs, Knight. Upon the first point, 

 several st-rvants of Mrs. Knitjlit's 

 proved, that Lord Middleton 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 loidship was in the habit of 

 intimacy with her father. Lord 

 Dormer, and her whole familv. 

 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-bone church to see the 

 register of baptism of the child, 

 and had taken an extract of it. 

 This circumstance was accounted 

 for, by its having appeared that 



