Court Of Common Pleas, Mo...
- (sit1? 8iitz jIancIO j . ,,,, In this case,- which was tried at C-uildlall or 6atuitdan,anV wIVS aplpeared in The Timter of yesrexdays \Iir. ,rgc4flt UROSS movd; tor a rule tosbow z.aue whly he'n6onui' shbuld nor bet seasid, ;id verdict entered for thq dpefend'ant . ' ; .! Lord Chief Juctice B EST stated' to the Couartwhat tgelatlXi&oFthe action waes, and reatd the various pleas,ispications7 anidreioin4era on the record. weto ' 'tt 'i ' 'iit~~t .Ur. Sergeant Cuosa eto to observe, thatt prdtt oet a tight decision on the ca.se, the stiho'le o'f' the fstets sh'qiuld birfpafIj explained to the Court. He tliea detailedl the shcde of the qrcuim- stances (which have already appeared), and. cor.endled that thc~ sherliPrhaving taken b1dl '(no martitc whe-.her.that bail wa:iooda dr not), he should have w aited uantdihe. faill dntim4lo ved oy.tbeprac- tice of the Ceurr, to justify, and not have attempted to siut in fresh bail. befofe the expiration of that time. - ' *- The ClouRTt said -that the ]earned Sergeant: might take a relc to show cause upon thsis jeoinr, and, asked whether he wcnt upon ansy other ground..h Mtr. Sergeant Cnoss s.aidheb had another grounid. He shoeuld b prepared to contenti, thst the sheriff's officer had no righlt to' put mf bail above, without the k*nowledge and consent of. Evans~-thet the sheriflllimsdlf had no right, aad flfortiori his deputy covuld not have it;- and therefore1'that havnng no right, to p~ut in the bail, the arrest ef the plaintift' by those baill in their o-vn discharge was illegal) aiitl his action for it was wJell bronght. The Cosstr gfranted the tide to s40ow cauCse.. If 't'llE HtATTESR 'OF SllNbEfl .AND DEvEItEuR. IAIABEAS COltP'US. In this catse a writ of kawetees. corpus was ototaineA .on Friday last, by Mlr. Sergeant LEAWES, calling on. the above-named parties to bring up a child ol' siX years old, the son of Skinner, trn order that it mighnt be removed from the care of'the father, and'delivercd oyer to that of the mother, or some other proper persons. Tbie affldai; stated (vide Thle Times of Saturday]last) that Mlrs. Skinner was obliged to separate fromo her housband in consequcenceof his bnutal ~conr uct towards her-that he had sinc e been cohabiting with another woman,an anld that thar. woman (Devereux) had the child. under her control. The child was brought before Mr. Justice Dear (whcn oneoft'the Judges of the Court of King's 13ench);on an application sinnilar to the presern,; andl it iwas then oriered-that neitier the fathlerndinsotheri should have the care of the child, but that it should'be kcept in care of at .M rs. Colville; but tie father had since then iuproperly taken !the cbild away. The fathaer was now a pnisoncr for debt ini Ilfosc- Imonger.lane gaol; and still (as was alleged) cohabiting,jwith De- iThe order of court wans-served upon Skinner uii .Saturday, and he iappeared to it to-day. - - I *Ven'thecase w as cailed on, Skiuner cam~eupoui the table, and Istated that the order was. not served uporn-him till- five o'clock on iSaturdiay, at which hoar thLe prison gates'were closedl for th,e'evenlng; thrlat lie had not since then sufficient timne to consult counsel. . |The LXoan C}rtEr JUSrsCE,.-Haa. dlc order been 'served on the woman Devereuxc ? . . - I Mr. Sergeant J,awas.-NVo, my Lord, we could not find her.- IThe LORDi CHIET J usTICE (to Skiaaer).-Werll, Sir, hlave you lbrought the child here ig Skinner.-No. my Lord, I' had no th.ne4and wvas not prepared.- M wr. Justice Paari.-NVhere i8 the child now ?- Skibmer.-It is wth5l at friend of milne. The L,oan CiesEy J USTICE.-Whlere, Sir ? You know where. Ithe child is, and you must not attempt to trifle with the order of the C (ourt, as you did with mec, wvhen thlis mzatter WaS before mec in an- iother place. iSkinner thlen s-lid that the child was with a MAr. WFalker, a sboe- maker, in Hertford.place. Drury-lane. ilr. Justice P~a^.._.-har could have prevented you, Sjr, from ,calling Ibr the child in y'our way from Horsemonuer.lane, this morn. 'inlg? Go now immediately, and bring the chilti'here ;and di40obey I the order of the Corirt at your periL- !Skinner then lett the court acco7npanied by the gaole of.ltoaie- Imongzer-lane, and in the course of the day returned wnt}r'thmechild I (af.ine boy, apparently about six-years old). On being asketl what I return he had made to the -affida7vit, he begged additional time, rn | order that lie might file affidavits in answer to those against him. | The Loan CHIEF .JUSTICE asked whether lie was satisfied to Ilet thc child return to thc care of. Airs. Coiviflle, fronm vrhomt he had lately taken it ? Skinner._My Lord, I conseated to leave my. child with MIrs. . C-lville, because there *vas then aman, a very particular friend of mine, residing in the same house. That-person has since left the house, and I rio not tbink i I now rsent the ehile' back, it would he taken proper care of. As to leaving toy chifld in the care of mty wife, it is a thing I could' nor thlink of doinlg, she being now liying in a state of p)rostitution with the man with whbom she ran away from ine. The LORD CIrIEF JusTIcE here asked whether some arranuge- meat might not he made between the man 'and his wife, by which the ehild mnight he conimiitted to some third party;* for he felt that neither thefather nor thme mother were pioper persons to have any fiur- ther chiargte of it. Mr. SEergeatnt LAWE? said that the wife would be ratisfied that the child shou!d be in the care of any respectable person; the great obriect of the present ap7plication was to get the child away from the control of the woman D)evereux, with whom the husband- still co- habited. Lord Chief Justice BEST again repecated his 'former suzggestion that the child, if there were.mnv foods whlich tnight 'be made ap. plicable to its niaiatenanee, should beceomrritted to the care of some third person, tupon-whomn those fundsr might be settled in trust. If this were nor dlone, and' that there' were suchl funds, ieplication mnight be n.ade to the Court of' Chancery to interfere, which itwould do in a very decisive way, and e0erhap7s put the parties to Ferea cx- pmense. " As to the interference by this Court," coiiti'n?ed his Lordship, i'I am by no means aatisfied that we haive such S power. The Court of Chancery, where the -Lotd Chancellor represerntsthe Kingas parcens jmtriio,might act in thiscease ;but how vcan-we, sitting as ax court of commnon law, make an order to deprive a fatber of the. custody and care of his childd? If gross ill-treatment of'thc chidd by the puarcnt were sworn, any Court might takeit away from his- -o.strol; but that is not sworn here. Indeed, iR order to fry what might be done for the relief of 'thc child, w e have gone farther than' perhaps wve were in strictness authorized to do; but I don't think we possits the power of doing any thing more." M7r. Sergeant LAWuc:S thtoughlt thieir lordsilup possessed such power, though l;e could tlind no case exactly inl pointor} rhebookt. Air. Justice PARE referred io'the case of "MS,andeville and .Nan- deville,'' vhich wats an appl1icatiun similar to the present, made in the Court of I;ing's Bench, andl in which that Conrt refused to arc, conceiving it had not the power. When that case afterwards came before the Lord Chancell.or, his Lordship approved of 'the derision to wh!ich the Court of Kitngs'slBeneh had conic, and fullv concur~red' in thinkng that it did nor possess the power to nnake thle ordefs re- 'be CouRT then inqulired whetimer there were aty funds api.' cable to the chd}d'a support ? Snkinner answered5 that lie knew of none, except what his small rmears afforded. - Any other funds by which-it was proposed -to nay fior the child's nahimtenance must arise from his wife's prostitutton, and upon these he could not, as a father, allowv his child to depend. lie then stated, that lie had at all timwes attended well to the child, had never lrt it w ant for any thing, and he wa.s still (disposed to-con- tinue the same care of it. The COURT, after excpressing its regret, that the child ha-d not somne better guardian thaii either fathmer or mother, declined to act farther in the caSe, as mnot havinmg audliority5 and dismissed it; the Lord Chief Ju:sdce havingfir,t cautionled the father against any future neglect of the child. Skinner was then remantded to the custody.of.thc gaoler. -Hc took the chiNl with him fro:n court, 'viii the understanding that'he'was to r eplace it in the care of MIr. Walker. The poor little fellow', the object of this discussion, was fast asleep.for a great part of the titne thae, he remame-l in cowit. - .- In tue course of thze day, the-Rightt 5hpa. Willlam learl of' St.' C erenains appeared in court, accompatitiEdby Lortl,Eliot, apid suf- fered a recovery of some landed Property, F-ith the usual formadhities. _ .~~~~~~~R CflTTRTP AI} (RAMMflT vt.At MnTflA MAY 3L. - EVANS V. SWEET. - - ,. t . - , - -