DEC. 11. having been releasedlimn a French pri , on upon the late peace, had got intoxicated on as illumination night in London, and had coin mated some assault, for which he was undergoing an examination at Bow-street before Sir N. Conant and Mr. Sketchley, the Magis trates, when Mr. Richard.on, the prosOentor came in, and took his seat with his brother Magistrates. The defendant abused Mr. Staf ford, the clerk, who was taking down the examinations of the wit nesses against him ; and upon the prosecutor (who sat near him) re monstrating with him, the defendant assaulted Lim, attempting to drag him out, and challenging him. Upon being told by the other Magistrates that the prosecutor was also a Magistrate, and upon the prosecutor's telling the defendant that he had been to . sea himself (as he had seven years). the defendant wished to make it up with him, and offered to shake hands with him. hut the prosecutor was retlised. It did not appear that the defendant knew the prosectitoi was a Magistrate in the execution of his duty, when he assaulted him. so that he could only be convicted of a common assault ; but it did appear most plainly that he was very drunk, and had offered an ample apology by his attorney ; bait Lord Ellenhorough held the assault committed ; and that a gentleman, who had his feelings wounded by one, however noble, was entitled to expect that that nob!emon should descend from his rank, and make.a personal repa ration to those wounded feelings. The defendant was therefore, under Isis Lordship's direction, found guilty ; hut his Lordship hoped that before the next term such an arrangement would be made, as that the Court should hear uo more of the case. COURT OF COMMON PLE‘S, MONDAY, DEC.S. KNIGHT, ESQ. V. LORD IKIDDLETON.--(CRIM. CON.) This was an aetion under very peculiar circumstances, The plaintiff. as it appeared by the testimony of one of his own witneses had in the year 18.17, brought an action against Colonel Fuller for criminal conversation with his wife, and had received large da mages. He aftewards went into Doctors' Commons, with the view of obtaining a divorce, but this was resisted on the ground of a collu sion with Col. Fuller, and lie then thought proper to withdraw the proceeding , . Ile had, however, separated himself from his wife since that time. In November, 1813, Mrs. Knight was delivered of a child. The plaintiff conceived Loud Middleton to be the father of it, and brought his action against his Lordship accordingly.—The evidence in Nippon of the plaintiff's case went on t,vo grounds. The first was to skew snclt familiarities between the defendant and Mrs. Knight as to raise a presumption that the criminal intercourse had taken place. The second ground, and what was most relied on was, that the conduct ()Mord Middleton had been surd', as that the• Jary must believe hi n to be the father of the child, and conso nnntly that he must have committed adultery with Mrs. Knight. Upon the first point, several servants of Mrs. Knight proved, that Lord Nliddleton 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 Lord ship was in the habit of intimacy with her father, Lord Dormer, and her whole family. 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.hone church to see the register of baptism of the child, and had taken an extract of it. This circumstance was aeconnted for, by its having appeared that he had been reported to be the father of the child, and an action threatened affainst him. It appeared also that he had been once seen coming front the house uhere the child was nursed. Serjeant Shepherd, on the part of the delen.ldnt, submitted that there vk as no evidence to go to a Jury, and that the ',Uinta must be nonsnited. The Chief Justice said, the evidence was indeed extremely slender, but he thought it better that the case should go to the Jury. Scrjeant Shepherd then stated to the Jury. that if, under those circumstances they were inclined to find for the plaintiff, the smalle it coin known in this country v (mid be sufficient to give as damages. He contended, however. that no circumstances at all were proved which could warrant a Jury in finding that an adnlterons connec t:on had taken place between his Lorthihip and Mrs. Knight. If the lady, in her state of separation from her husband, had produced a child, it was evident that she had committed adultery with some dy or other ; but that was no proof against Lord Middleton, any in re than against any other gentleman who visited her. As to the ci:annstances which had been stated, there was nothing- which *23 could give them a right to infer that ht anv pariletilar time or p:aee this adulterous connection had taken place. The Chief Justice began his charge to the Jury by informing them, that it had been held by Lord Kenyon, and hall since been ruled by the Court of King's Bench, that as the action for erins. con. was an action to recover damages for being deprived of the aid anti comfort of the society of a wife, a hash,►nd that had ...yoluntdrilv separated himself from that society could not m fintain this action. In the case, however, where this doctrine was hod, th e se p ara ti on had been a regular one. As it did not appear that the seohratiou 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 (to case their verdict should be for the plaintiff ) to move the Court of Com mon Pleas for a nonsuit on this ground. Elk Lordship then re capitulated 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. DEC. 6. MAGN AY r. BU It LEIGH. This was an action to recover sixty guineas, - the price paid for a horse &ledged to be unsound. The plaintiff, after having pur chased the horse from the defendant, sold it to a Mr. Christopher, who returned it as unsound, being what is called a crib-biter. The plaintiff then returned it to the defoliant, .and brought his action. —On the part of the plaintiff a number of witnesses were called, who stated, that in their judgment this crib-biting, or biting the manger, was a great imperfection in a horse; some of them con ceived that it was a sign of bad lungs, sod that it ended in the horse becoming broken winded. One of them even conceived that a crib-biting horse must have his lungs differently placed from what they were in a sound horse. Two witnesses mentioned, that a crib biting horse wasted more of his oats than another horse, and conse gnently did not receive the same nutriment from his food. One witness, however, allowed that he had horses of that description which never got broken-winded. Others confessed that this was sometimes only a trick or habit of a horse, without any unsound ness discoverable in any other way. There being ao farther proof as to the unsoundness of the horse than this habit of biting the manger, and one of the Jurors having expressed a doubt (in whiclt his Lordship seemed to coincide) of such proof being sufficient to establish the alledged unsoundness, the Counsel for the dcfendanr were not called on to go into their case, and the plaintiff (IS non suited. Thursday. in the Court of Common Peas, Guildhall, an action was tried, Vernon v. Miles, to recover a compensation in datwiges for an assault and false imprisonment. The plaint& reside: at Stock, near Ingatestone, in Essex; the Defendant is one of the proprietors of Gsrraway's Cotree.house. The history of the atrair is shortly this: Vernon, who frequented Garraway's, was sern Se veral times to sneak away, after ordering saudwitches, eze. with our-paying his reckoning. He was watched and detected on the 12d of February, and sent to the Poultry Compter as a swindler, but was afterwards bailed out and di , ehari!ed : for this impri•ou. meat the Action was now brought.—The Cnief Justice holding that the defendant had no legal right to take the plaintiff i»t , , cu>todv, the Jury returned a verdict for plaintiff, with One Farthing Da mages! DEAN AND CHAPTER OF ST. PAUL'S. THF, NATIOr47 - A - L frEGI.STER"; WHITX V. WHITE. This was a cause of divorce, by reason of ernr!ty, brow:lit by Elizabeth White against William White, of Harrow.o7:•the The libel stated gross language, and various acts of el oclty , co , !;- witted on the part of the husband towards lii4 wife. —Tie Cool t (Dr. Jenner) was of opinion it ought to go to proof, and accord ingly admitted the same. POLICE. BOW-STREET. James fienderson was on Friday brought to the Office front the watch house, charged with committing a grass ontrate and :li•turh ance in the boxes, Sic. of Drury lane 'flit.atre. au Tinir,day night. It appeared from the evidence of Nett;eton and Chments, two of the constables helonginc in Drury-lane Theatre, that 350,:t t( O'clock ou Thursday night they were ca;lud info the Sil,hot woman selling fruit there, to prevent mischief being done by u h prisoner, who was behaving in a riotous manlier. When they et,! .~•-~ --