The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-05-25 00:00:00

stated in the petition were KO general, that they could not be sped-
tinily answered. and therefore lie felt bound to ask his Lordship to
dismiss it ; although he at the same time did not feel called upon
to oppose any order his Lordship might be pleased to make, fur the
petition to be amended with a view to the grout.Js upon which the
traverse was asked for being more explicitly set forth. The
Learned Counsel then adverted to the affidavits of Drs. Willis,
Mont°. and Sutherland, and declared it to be his opinion, founded
upon the statements of those Gentlemen. that there was no sub-
stantial ground for impugning the verdict found by the Inqui-
sition.
31r. SuPriest said, that on the part of Captain Turner he was
instructed not to oppose the petition ; but at the same time it was
the anxious wish of all the members of the family of the lunatic
that the question should be set at rest as soon as possible.
The Loan CHANCELLOR said, that previous to the late Act,
any person was competent 10 present a petition to traverse the In-
quisition ; but that with respect to the party himself, he had no
occasion to petition the Court at all, but had a right to traverse It,
and to demand of the Chancellor that one of his office that traverse
should issue; and Were was no limitation to the exercise of that
right. But it often happened that this right was prejudicial to the
pp arty himself, and therefore the Act had been passed, giving the
Lord Chancellor a discretionary power to grant or to withhold the
right of traversing the return of the Inquisition, after a certain
period had elapsed. It was impossible to represent a ease in which
such II limitation was more prudent to be fixed than the present,
provided Sir Gregory Page Turner was in the unhappy situa-
tion he was, by a verdict of a lure, found to be. lie had
never yet been able to learn why Sir Gregory was advised by any
body about him to traverse the Inquisition. If the evidence of
Dr. Burrows and Dr. Beldam did not go to establish the fact that
sir Gregory wee at present of sound mind, and capable of managing
I his affairs, their aftidavits would go t.t. nothing. Why then, if
such affidavits could be made by such respectable characters, did
not Sir Gregory present a short petition, to supersede the Com-
mission, instead of wishing to traverse the Inquisition; which
would involve upon him the necessity of proving that he was not
only of taund mind now, but was so in December, 1823, when the
Inquisition was found, and had been so ever since ? In the first
place, a traverse was not at all necessary ; and in the second, it
would invoice an expense upon the estate of Sir Gregory, which
he, as the guardian of that estate, was not at all willing to incur.
Ile felt however, that a more sacred duty could not be imposed
upon him than that of exercising the great poser with which he
was invested ; and he would therefore must anxiously attend to
any thing that 3lr. Treslove might be able to suggest on Tuesday
next, why a t se should be allowed, instead of • petition for
superseding the Commission being presented.

VICE-CHANCELLOR'S COURT, WEDNESDAY, MAY N

ROBINSON L. FLETCIIER.

Mr. KXTOHT 111:1;5.;htiqhi; fra/TipeiitiOn from Mrs. M'Ma.
bon, praying that his Honour would direct that it be referred to the
Master, to consider as to a proper residence for the infant John
Robinson, her child by a former husband, and also what sum of
money should be paid to her by Mr. Fletcher, the guardian of the
child, for its board and education since the death of its father,fand
also for its future maintenance. The circumstances of the case
were as follow :—Mr. Fletcher was left sole testamentary guardian
of the child, and of course his legal title to the possession of the child
was unquestionable ; but still it might be worthy the serious con-
sideration of tip Court, whether it would decide that au infant of
four years old should be deprived of the care and attention of its
mother. The child was taken from the house of its grandmother
and surely it would be too much for Mr. Fletcher to possess himself
of the child, and keep it separate front its mother, when there was
no imputation whatever against her character or conduct. It was
true she had married a second husband ; but not until two years
after the death of the first, and he was a gentleman occupying a
situation in life equal to her own. The only imputation against
her was, that upon one occasion her child was ill in Liverpool, and
she did not leave London to attend to it personally; but the fact
was, that she was ill in London at the time, and wholly unfit to
travel, of which fact he had the affidavit of her medical attendant.
There was a somewhat singular coincidence, which might give a
clue to Mr. Fletcher's conduct. By a comparison of dates, it would
appear that it was on the 26th of January, 1826, that A" r. Fletcher
took away the child, which was exactly one week after he had been
applied to by Mrs. M'Malion's solicitor, for sn account of the sums
spent on account of the children, John and George Robinson. and
also of the amount of property accruing to them under their father's
will. Mr. Fletcher's solicitor refused to give an account, and then
it was that Mr. Y. thought proper to exercise his legal right as
guardian. Up to the present moment Mr. Fletcher had rendered
no account of the property, although a bill was filed for that pur.
pose in Hilary Term. Mrs. Ill'Mahon was entitled to the interest
of three thousand pounds. and Mr. I'. had admitted that there was
sufficient property left, after the payment of all debts, to authorize
him to pay that interest; but notwithstanding this, all that she had
received in the way of interest was 110/., although it was nearly
three years since the death of the testator. About 110/. hail been
paid on account of the children, making in all 1901. Under these
circumstances, he felt confident that his Honour would order the
child to be restored pending the proceedings, and that it might be
referred to the Master, to inquire into the extent of the fortune of
that child, and also of his brother George Robinson.
Alt. COE said that the child had been taken with the consent of
its maternal grandmother, under whose care it was placed at the
time; and the grandfather also was anxious that Mr. Fletcher
should take both children under his care, professing as he (the
grandfather) did to know nothing of Mr. Al'lllahon, and disap.
proving his daughter's marriage with that gentleman. It appeared
by the affidavit of Mr. Fletcher, that after the payment of debts
and the reservation of the 30001. for Mrs. 31•31ahon, there would I
not remain any very considerable sum for the children. It was his
intention to claim the other child also, and as for the child whom
he had taken, it was now one of his family. He had six children
of his own, and this boy was in every respect treated as they were.
It was true they had not sought to cast any imputation upon Mrs.
Al`Mahon, had she not done so herself; but in the course of last
October she had called on Mr. Fletcher, dressed in mourning, and
when Mr. F. then mentioned the report as to her marriage, she
said she supposed it was so. Thus she herself cast an imputation
upon her marriage by concealing it. There was no imputation
whatever against Mr. Fletcher, and he, therefore, hoped that the
petition would be dismissed with costs.
Mr. KNIGHT said that he felt eonfident that the Court would
not determine to separate the child from its mother, whose conduct
was above imputatton, slide that of Mr. Fletcher was wholly un.
accountable, having left the lady without the income of 150/. per
annum to which she was entitled, for nearly three years, daring
which period he had paid her only 1101.1 As to her marriage, it
was not by any means discreditable; llr. Al'Mahon being an
officer in the army. It was impossible' he thought, to separate
the seizure a the child, upon the Gth of January, from the letter of
the 28th of December preceding: and it was, therefore, only rea.
sonable that the prayer of the petition should be acceded to.
! The VICE•CHANCELLOR said he was relieved from the neces.
sity of decreeing that the child should be taken from its natural
! guardian in the present instance, because, in fact, the child was
under the protection of its grandmother; therefore upon that head
there was DO ground to interfere. There was no ground to suppose
I that Mr. Fletcher would not attend properly to the education of the
children, and the Court would take especial care that the mother,
should have access to the child. He could not order a reference as
to future maintsnanee, because the child was to reside with its
guardian; but he would refer to the .Master to consider as to the
sum which the mother should receive fur the pint expenditure of
the children, upon a elear understanding that the mother should,
in the first instance, give up the other child also to its legal
guardian.
There was no other case of interest before the Court.