998 



ANNUAL REGISTER, 1814-. 



he had been reported to be the 

 father of the child, and an action 

 threatened against him. It ap- 

 peared also that he had been once 

 seen coming from the house where 

 the child was nursed. 



Serjeant Shepherd, on the part 

 of the defendant, submitted that 

 there was no evidence to go to a 

 jury, and that the plaintiff must 

 be nonsuited. 



The Chief Justice said the evi- 

 dence was indeed extremely slen- 

 der, but he thought it better that 

 the case should go to the jury. 



Serjeant Shepherd then stated 

 to the Jury, that, if under those 

 circumstances they were inclined 

 to find for the plaintiff, the small- 

 est coin known in this country 

 would be sufficient to give as 

 damages. He contended, how- 

 ever, that no circumstances at all 

 were proved which could warrant 

 a Jury in finding that an adulte- 

 rous connection had taken place 

 between his Lordship and Mrs. 

 Knight. If the lady, in her state 

 of separation from her husband, 

 had produced a child, it was evi- 

 dent that she had committed adul- 

 tery with somebody or other; but 

 that was no proof against Lord 

 Middleton, any more than against 

 any other gentleman who visited 

 her. As to the circumstances 

 ^hich had been stated, there was 

 nothing which could give them a 

 right to infer, that at any particular 

 time or place this adulterous con- 

 nection had taken place. 



The Chief Justice began his 

 charge to the Jury by informing 

 them, that it had been held by 

 Lord Keuyon, and had since been 

 ruled by the Court of King's- 

 bench, that as the action for crim. 

 icon, was an action to recover da- 



mages for being deprived of the 

 aid and comfort of the society of a 

 wife, a husband that had volun- 

 tarily separated himself from that 

 society could not maintain this 

 action. In the case, however, 

 where this doctrine was held, the 

 separation had been a regular one. 

 As it did not appear that the sepa- 

 ration 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 

 (in case their verdict should be for 

 the plaintiff) to move the Court of 

 Common Pleas for a nonsuit on 

 this ground. His Lordship then 

 recapitulated 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. 



GOMMEaCIAL CAUSES. 



YorkAssizes. — Thursday, March 

 31. — Before Sir Simon Le Blanc 

 and a Special Jury. — Price v. 

 Sandys. — This was a cause which 

 excited much interest in the north. 

 The real plaintiffs were the Ma- 

 gistrates of the county of Dur- 

 ham, and the defendant was au 

 eminent architect, residing in 

 Manchester-square, London. It 

 appeared that, about the year 

 1809, the Magistrates having de- 

 termined to erect new court- 

 houses and a gaol for the county 

 of Durham, the defendant sent 

 in his proposals and plans, and 

 wished to have the superintend- 

 ance of these structures, which 

 were intended to be raised io a 

 splendid and durable style. His 

 terms and plans were approved of, 



