The Express.
London, England, 1853-03-14 00:00:00

ifgatn *ntelligence.

HOUSE OF LOltl)S—SArciumt.
syrt.u.%—Baroas WWI LORD C:II3,CULL4I. THD Dl:xx OF MUs.
'MAK. VALI. DINUCMAIW, AND LAMM SMotuMau.
AD NISION D. HADISUIL:S.--Thi 1.04014 L. LW lINI N. C.. 11. tNID.

.
1 his an appeal from the second division of the Court of
fiessiva is Scotland, in which Ebenezer Adamson, inspector
of the pour of the city parish of Allseaow, be the sppeilsnt,
and Robert Barbour, inseector et the poor of the parish of
Lochwinnoch„ is the respondent. The reiestion raised w—
ither' a man horn in Scotland, hut who has mom acquired
• r,sitleatiol settlement is transported, leaving children
without any funds of their owe, a, any re Wires capable
of support no them does the hurtle-1i ot ntsirtami..4 them
lie In the parish of the lather's birth. It appeared that iu
July, 1816, am w num il thereat) M'lntyre, who was at
the time resitlii.ir with kis fear!: in the city perish of Glue-
goo, was apprehended on a char.,. 1 f them la December
Mlle:wing he was convicted, and-eat:need to treesportaties.
At the time of his apprehension he had aosettlement by re-
sidelice in soy paridi ; bat it i• ailnieted that he was bra ht
Locher ionaeli. Ilis family canoed:al of a wife and five
chi.drea, all being in what is :Pail a state of pupillarity ;
that is the boys were under 11 and the girls under 12
years of age. Them. their was eh!, to support the chil-
dren, and the inspector ell Cie rut the city parish of
Uharno ass 411144 to for their maintenence, who sup
Isheu relies for • emu time; but afters ards raised en acting
against the !present respondent, as representing the parish of
the father's birth sad claimed, tint, fur the payment of the
er.airiut she edy given to the sup pert of the children ; and,
secoiallv, to I. treed and relic,, ii aim the bur 'en ut male-
lamina the children for the time t, come. Th. eve was
beard in tint sheriff Court of Itenfree shire, and the sheriff
substitute derided against the defender (the present re.
spend.. nt), cs.d the sheriff hating adhered to that derbies,
the 11 sporvi...t preseweil a slide ail -dvoratlan, which was
reported to the loner Mouse by the Lord Ortli-.ary without
anyilecision by him, under the provisions of 13 & 14 Viet.,
c. 36, we. The court rev: ned the interlocutor of the
sheriff. and decided against the claim of the appellant ; end
against that decision the present appeal was brought. The
cue is one of great importance to the por•loat system in
&milted. It wu admitted on both tiles that there are,
is all, three modes by which a set:Lewes% may be
acquired, • is., by birth, bj miluoteial residence of the per-
sou acquiring the right, ur by industrial residence of a
father sequiliag it for each of his family. Children being
incapable at industrial residence, the first and last are the
only mod• aby which they can acquire a settlement--of these
the lutist sad leading ono is acquired by the birth of each
individual in • particular pari:h tar the stetutury period of
fire years, whereby parent and child each acquire in that
parish • settlement by residence. For the appellant it was
contended that the city parish of Glee:got% represented by
the appellant, is entitled to relief teem the parish of Lech-
winueth, of tile burden of the past and future risaiatenabee
oldie intant children of fil•lntyre, the parish of Luchwin-
'loch briny the parish of his legal settlement, because it is
an establitead principle of the Souttish poorlaw that so long
as legitimate children are is pup:levity, and nut emend.
petted, the sr settlement is determined by the settlement of
their father, and becaus: it fellows from this principle that
in the event of such children falling into destitution in
consequeace of the inability or failure of their
father to rrovide for their support and maintenance, the
parish, bag:id to afford them relief is the parish of their
father's settlement. That principle which had bee n hitherto
recognised generelly in the administiation of the poor law
in Scotland, had been directly negatived by the decision of
the court below. The general principle applies squally to
the case where the father is dead, or absent from his chil-
dren, or where the father is alive, and the children residing
with him. Children being considered as part of the family
must be maintained by the parish which would bete been
liable to the maintenance of the father, had he been a
claimant; and the place of their birth is not liable, except
the place of their settlement is unknown. When a pauper
has no other settlement, he is entitled to be supported by
the parish where he is born; but he cannot have recourse le
that settlement if he has acquired a settlement rendenoe,
or parentage. It was also urged that there were other
grounds which entitled the appellants to be relieved of this
burden, fur that in the absence of the husband, his wife is
bound in law to maintain their infant children, and, as she
is incapable of doing so, the claim for their relief is strictly
and legally to be regarded as a claim at her instance, and,
consequently, lies against the parish of her settlement,
which being the same as the parish of her husband's set-
tlement, is Lochwitutoch. In fact, the children were not
entered as paupers in the books of the city parish of Glas-
gow, but the mother only. and the sums were paid to her,
and, strictly speaking, she !omit was the object of pare-
chit' relief. In the absence of the father, the mother of le-
gitimate children is the head of the family, and her settle-
ment is that of her husband, which she possesses both for
herself and her children.
For the respondents, it was urged that the principle on
which the Poor Law provides permanent relief is that such
relief shall ba furnished by the parish in which the object
of relief, that is, the person requiring to be maintained,
holds a settlement; that the father of a family becomes
a proper object of relief only when he is ren-
dered incapable by old ago or disease, of main-
taining his family; that the parish of Leehwinnoch is
nut liable to maintain the children of Wlntyre, because
they were sot born there, nor had their father resided
there industrially for the statutory period ; and that the
feet that their father is alive does not give children • settle-
ment in the parish of his birth ; nor does the fact that their
father holden settlement in the parish of Lochwinnoch
the present circumstances render that pariah liable to mein-
taro the children ; that a family is in no way reeounised as
an object of relief; that the money advanced for the sup
port of the children by the parish of the father's settlement
when his f,ilure to support them is occasioned by old age ee
disease is relief not to the family but to the father indieh
daaily ; that the parish of Lochwinuoch is not liable to the
support of the children, because under their lather's settle-
ment there is no peeper ohject of relief ; that the mother is
alive, and the father bovine been transported instead of
having sheconded and deeert.:l his family, does not affect
the decision of the question as to the liability of the father's
parish, and that the parish of Lochwinuoch being bound to
give relief oily if some person bolding • settlement therein
be a proper nhject of relief is not liable in the prescnt case,
bee ease leo such peer:leis here a ;-roper object of relief.
Mr. Melt and Mr. Anderson appeared far that epee:dents.
'lnc reply was not concluded when the house adjourned.

Pia W. Not Root.

--
mp Mama Or Tilt BEDVOIID CHARtells.
Thiessen Inoue en for the confirmation of tho Master's
retort. The aims of the charity had been settled by net
of parliament, 7 Oso. IV., e. 29, and by the 14th 'tenon of
thee act power wee given to the trustees in ease of any diffi-
culty arising in the execution of the scheme there declared
to apply by petition to the Court of Chancery, and by the
16th section power was given to the Attorney, General to
apply in case of misconduct of any of the parties. In 1849
the t•ustees had applied to parliament for further powers.
The hill had pissed the Common., but was stopped in the
Lords, in order that a petition might he presented to the
Lord Chancellor. The trustees did cot prosecute their sp-
rit ,time, and the matter was taken up by the Attorney-
General. The ease came before Sir James Parker, and an
order was drawn up refining it to the Muter to settle a
scheme, and report what ought to he dote. The Master
had proposed Suit the trustees should be alteted, end that
persons should not 811 that office Con the ground solely of
being corporate of/leen of the town of Bedford. and that
the trustees should hare power to raise 10,0001. by meet-
gage, fur the purposes therein mentioned. It bed been
then sent back to the Master to settle a bill to bi brought
into parliament; which he hid done.
The Solicitor-General and Mr„ Wickens (for the Attorney-
Gener.-1) proposed that the Master's report be confirmed.
Mr. Malin* and Mr. !fifteens, forth. trustees, contended
that this was a rooeeding under section 14, and therefore
the court had no yarisdictiou, except on the application of
the trustees; that the proposed eche= was to take away
from the inhabitants of Bedford the right of naming the
trustees, and would repeal the 73rd section of the Muni-
cipal Corporation Act; and the introduetion of the proposal
to tax the costs, which the trustees had incurred sad bad
lone ago paid, was most uncalled for.
The Vlce-Chancellor said he had no doubt about the
jurisdiction o: the court. An order had been made, and
any party might prosecute it. Section 13 of tho act vested
all the lands in the trustee', to be applied to purposes partly
eleemosynary, and partly educational, and directed the in-
vestment of the surplus. That had been found inconvenient.
The only difficulty he hail felt was as to the rsioiug money
by mortgage, but that had been removed, and he thought
the Master's recommendation elsould be carried into Met,
and it must be referred to the taxing master to ascertain
whether the trustees bad properly incurred any and what
eat., charms', and expenses, in and about the application
to perliemeot, and if the amount paid by the trustees should
exceed the taxed costa they must account fur the ffiffer-
sect.

PREROGATIVE COURT, MARCH 11.
bayou Ma Joss Denies.
LANZLYILLE v. ANDERSOL—SExtiNcz.
This was a business of treeing in solemn form the will of
the late of Mr. Andersen, of Nogent-sur•Marne, nearl'aris,
promoted by Madame Ceterine Larnuville, widow, aid op-
posed by Mr. Anderson, the nephew of the deceased. Mr.
Anderson had been engaged to Madame Laneuville, then
Burtl.e, in 1;99, but during tho revolution Le was
assisted by her, at the risk of her own life, to escape. In
111.13, his reputed daughter died. and he then coueeived the
Idea of ascertaining whether his betrothed war yet talive.
After having made inquiries for two years, he discovered
that she was sun in being ; that she had been married, but
that she was a widow. Ile immet,iately west over to!Paris
and took aeartmeuts in the same hots with her,announcing
his ile'srmititi9n not to leave her again, except occasionally
to transact ltudnese in England. lle would even have
completed h:s long deferred engagement, but that she re-
fused on pennant of their gnat age. In December, 1919, he
died, leaving •will by which lie bequeathed the whole of his
propert.', cnitsiitiog of 35,C00/. in toe English funds, to her.
the poist in dispute was, whether he was ex-domiciled in
France at the tune of his death or not.
Sir John D ,Ison now gave sentence in favour of the
foreign than: .ile.

COURT OF BANILRUPTCY.—SATuRDAT.
Lovas La. Communvat Gou..iwas.
Ix as R. C. Coca.
_ . _ _

Tho bankrupt was described as • merchant, of Islington.
This was the meeting fur the last examination. The ac-
counts prepared by Moises. Hutton, showed dept. 4001. ;
mach in property, 991. ; cash in hands of Oriental Dunking
Company at Ceylon, 3001.
Mr. Hitleary, for the bankrupt, stated that be had Leen
basted to enter into partnership with the firm of Lambe
sad Co., of Colombo, Ceylon, paying in a mpital of about

1,4901. The partnership commenced in July, 1850, and
eat dissolved by deed in January, 1332—the deed contain-
ing a clause whereby Frederie Lambe covenanted to kold
the bankrupt for ever harmless and indemnified front the
liabilities incurred during the partnership. Since then
Lsmbe had become bankrupt et Colombo; his debts were
21,0001., and the wet• would only yi,ld about half-a crown
in the pound. The bankrupt, on returning to this country,
had been sued by the crediture ut Lambe and Co., and now
came before the court in consequence.
There wu no opposition and the bankrupt pound.

INSOLVENT DEBTORS' COURT.--fiATURDAY.
Dm 391: MI. Coate,.Kiska Panama.
Ix un Srat•uax THOM %S. tNT To DIWOUNT AND
COMNIASION AciaNrs.
This insolvent, deseribed as s " commission and discount
agent," applied under the Pesdectinn Act. It appealed
that tle• insolvent had some b.lli of exchange in his sche-
dule to which he had pat his name and had received a
commission.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips asked him how he came to put
his name to such bills?
The insalvent said that as • disco ant agent it was cus-
tomary.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips—Then I call them SCCOMMO-
- bills. His Honour expressed himself of opinion that
the legislature did not intend t • apply the act to such per-
sons. The insolvent had mule himself liable on the bills,
and had received • " commission," as he called it in his
schedule, of 30s. on each bill.
In answer to a question, the insolvent said he had not
paid • small bill to a tailor, becaus, it was nut convenient.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips was satisfied that he had no
power to grant the application to appoint a day fur the
final order, as debts on the bills hod been incurred without
reasonable or probable exoeckation of payment.
The case was adjourned sine die, and without protection.
An application was made, on the part of the insolvent,
that he might apply mtairi in two months.
Mr. Commissioner Phillips r• fused to give permission, re-
marking that the insdvert had made a •' system" of put-
ting his name to bills. He left the court without pro-
tection.

MARCH 11.
Ilimpaz Tint CUIRP COlllll.llOO/114.
IX Tus MArran 0! WILLIAM W,OLDIIRAHAW.—DHEACM

Or TRUST Hy AN ATTORNEY.

This insolvent, en attorney. appeared for judgment. Mr.
Dowse,': Mr. Sarstond, and Mr. Macrae opposed for cre-
ditors. and Mr. Nichols supported.
The principal complaint urged against the insolvent
was by Mr. Dowse, rn the part of Mr. Newman,
boutmaker, of Skinner-street, Sisow-hill, and that was,
that he had contracted a dent of 3001. with him by
means of a breach of trEst. A poor old woman opposed
in person for 7001., which was a balance of money left by
her son in the insolvent's hands. It appeared that
the insolvent had formerly had a very good business,
making about 5001. a year. Ile gut connected with several
railway projects, and claimed more than 3,0001. for profes-
sional busineasand money advanced. He also claimed upwards
of 3,0001. from* person named Durant, for money advanced.
The debts owing by the insolvent were 8,3881., and be had
8,7201. due to hint. He owed his mother-in-law, Mrs.
Madge, 4,0001. for money advanced during his connexion
with the railways. Mr. Newman and the insolvent were
cousins, and the firmer wishing to make more of his money
than he could by the funds, placed 3001. in the insolvent's
possession to advance on mortgage. It was lent and repaid,
and then the insolvent suggested that a gentleman at
Harrow required the money on mo:tgege, which Mr. New-
man was agreeable to advance, and the insolvent told him
he had advanced it as requested. Some time afterwards
Mr. Newman discovered that the money had not been ad-
vanced, as he was informed, but had gone with other ad-
yawns to Mr. Durant, who had failed in business, and who
was • debtor to the amount of 3,3)d1.
The Chief Commissioner, in giving judgment, expressed
his regret at seeing a person in the position of the insolvent
opposed on • serious ground, who had for twenty years
followed an honourable profession. The debts were large,
as also were the debts owing to the insolvent. He was to
consider whether the insolvent had contracted a debt of
3001. with Mr. Newman fraudulently by means of a breach
of trust. After referring to the evidence, the learned Com-
missioner sail he was bound to arrive at the conclusion,
however much he lamented it, that falsehoodshad been told
the creditor, end that he had been lulled into the
belief that his money was sate on mortgage, when it had
gone to Durant. It was therefore a breach:of trust and
one that called for a serious judgment. With regard to the
poor old women who had appeared, it was a great loss to
her; but II 0 case had been proved. He, however, hoped
that something might yet be done for her. His Honour
after alluding to some other cases, thought that owl,s
the complaint of Mr. Newman had been made out. T
complaint was a very serious one against • professional
man ; and the judgment of the court was, that the insolvent
was entitled to the benefit of the act as to all his creditors,
except Mr. Newman, and at his suit he should be dis-
charged when he had been in custody for twelve calendar
months from the vesting order (Januaty Bth) for having
contracted his debt fraudulently by means of breach of
trust.

ASSIZE INTBLLIGBNCB.