
    George Gardner, jr. against Christian Madeira.
    In orim. con. where the injury is stated to have been committed within certain days, proof of improper freedoms must be first had within the limited period.
    Trespass and crim. con. The plaintiff declared, that the defendant on the 1st January 1796, and at divers other times, from, thence until the 1st November following, made an assault on Margaret the wife of the plaintiff, and her did ravish, lay with, aud carnally know, per quod consortium amisit, &o.
    
    The plaintiff called several'witnesses, but could not establish any improper freedoms between the defendant and his wife, within the times declared for. He then proposed to examine other witnesses to show acts of lewdness between them, subsequent to the 1st November 1796, and before the bringing of the action which was objected to by the defendant’s counsel.
    Messrs. Biddle and Spayd, pro quer.
    
    Messrs. Hopkins and Evans, pro def.
    
   By the court.

In general, the time of an injury being committed, is no more a material part of the complaint, than it is of a contract. Gib. Law Evid. 238. But where a trespass is alleged to have been committed between certain days, it would be a surprise on the defendant, not to confine the proof to the times laid, (Bull. Ni. Pri. 86,) in the first instance; after laying^a reasonable ground to infer an improper connection between the parties, within the limited period, the court will be more liberal afterwards, in receiving other evidence of indecent conduct at different times, tending to show the criminal views and acts of the parties.

The plaintiff suffered a nonsuit.  