Court Of Common Pleas, Fr...
. raursIgs in .ta,zco. j - ne prisoners contfied in theFleet latelyapesented a petition to tbis Court, sCtting fortb, that the rles of the prison were so limit- ed, as to occasion very considerable inconvenience. There was no other place of worship witbin thc extent of he rules, but that which was within the walls of the prison itself; and in addition to this, they stated, that the houses within the rules did not affird sufficient accomniodation for the number of prisoners who were disposed to avail themselves of the benefit of those rules. They th:refore prayed the Court to grant such an enlargement of the rules of the pnson as would be sufficient to obviate those inconveniences. The LORD CEtIEF JUSTICE, on the sitting of the Court this morning, adverted to this petition, and obserred, that the Ceurt baving taken the matter into consideration, were of opinion that the rules ought to be enlarged. They therefore ordered, that the limits of the rules should extend from the prison.gate, seuthward, to Chatham-place, Blackfriars- bridge, ncluding hoth sides of the wvay, except Fleet-market. They were also to extend firom St. Paul's to Salisbury-court at one side, aad Shoe-.lane, on the other side, of Fleet-street, induding the churches of l.udgate-hiUl andSt. Bride's, but excepting Ave-Alaria- lane and the Blackfriar's Gateway.....This direction was entered as IN RE SKINNER AND DEVEREAUX. Mlr. Sergeant LAWES. moved in this cese that a writ of habeat corpus should be issued, directing the two parties above named, or either of them, tobring to Court a child of six years old, thedaugh- ter of Skinner, which thev now detained in their possession. the application was made on the part of Mrs. Skinner the mother of the child, and its object was, that the child should be taken from the care of the father and the woman Devereaux, the other person named, and given to the mother. The affidavit on which this motion was made, stated the marriage of Skin- ner and his wife, and the birth of the child. The husband and wife soon after separated, owing, as wasaleged, tothebrutal conduct of the former. Since that separation, he had continued to cohabit with the woman Devereaux. The wife v6 as obligcd to take refuge with her friends, where she now remained. On the separation, the wife took tie child with her, bat the husband sued out a writ of habeas corpus from the Court of King's Bench, which was made returnable before Mr. Justice Best, at that time one of the Judges of that Court. lVhen the matter came before that Judge, he suggested that the care of the child should be intrusted to a third party, and not left to either father ormother. Itwasin conse- quence given to the care of a Mirs. Colville, living at Hampstead. Notwithstanding this arrangement, the husband soon after called to see the child, and under pretence of taking it for a walk, he took it away, and gave it to the care of Mlrs. Devereaux, with whom he stiU continued to cohabit, though he was now a prisoner in Horse- monger-lane gaol. Under these circumnstances, the leamed counsel hoped the Court would grant this application. Alr. Justice PARK said, that if it could be shown that the child was under the control of the woman Devereaux, that would be a strongcase; but hethousht, unless something of this kind were shown, the Court would hesitate before it interfered to take a child from the custody of its father. The LoRD CHIEF JUSTICE said, that if the affidavits now Sworn were the same as those sworn when the matter was before him in the Court of King's Bench, he would repeat the opinion then gven, that the child should not be allowed io remain with eiter father or mother. He had before sug- gested that the child should be made a ward of Chancery, and e stiU continued of that opinion; and as there was some propertyin- volvedin the question, it might be referred to the Master, who would have power to recommend a fit person for the education of the child, and would also order the necessary funds tor that purpose. The great difficulty in the present case was, what should be done when the child was brought before the Court ? Mr. Sergeant LAWES cited several cases to show the jurisdiction of the Court in such instances as the present. Amongst others he mentioned the case of Blissetts, in Loft's Reports, in which Lord Alansfield held, that if the child by remainsng with the parent was getting an inmproper education, the Court, acting in behlalf of society at large, which had a right to superintend the enucation of its mem- bers, mught peremptorily interfere. In the present case, the father was in prison, and was at the same time illegaUy cohabiting with an- other woman. These circumstances were similar to those tentioned in Blissett's case, and on the authority of that case he submitted that he was entitled to his motion. The COURT said, that if the learned Sergeant pressed it, they must grant the writ, which the g accordingly ordered. COURT OF COMMrnON PLEAS, FRIDAY. MAY 28. ENLARGEDIENT OF THE RULES OF TTi'E PT.RT TV-TA WT-