The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1826-01-27 00:00:00

TIORILLO t. OROWDEN.

Ws was an action brought by who is a native of
Italy. to recover trout the defendant the sum of 301. for the mar,_
tr n owe of an illegitimate child. It appeared on the trial before
the Lord Chief Justice at the last sittings for Middlesex, that the
plaintiff' had borne a child, of whom the defendant, who is a Mega.
to the army, was the reputed lather, and who had. from the birth of
the child in 1318, up to 13.10, slowed the plaintiff 12s. a 'week kr
its inaiatenance. In 1320, however, he directed a letter to be wed-
ten to the pininiiff', stating that he would tat continue to pay her
the allowance any longer, unless she would go before a Magistrate
and make oath that he was the father of thektild. To this letter
the plaintiff directed her attorney to reply, that if the detentaLt
would undertake to continue the 12e. a week se usual, she would',
in order to satisfy his mind, make the oath required ' • but if he
declined to give that pledge, she would not go before the Magistrate.
No answer was returned to this letter, and after wailing some time,
till the weekly allowances had been in armr to the amount of 301.,
the mother of the child then resorted to this action. Mr.
Scarlett, as the plaintiff's Counsel, contended on the trial that the
letter of 11113, in which the defendant acreed to pay the plaintiff
12s. a week, was not revoked by the letter of 1820. because the pro-
position contained in the latter was conditional, sod as the plaintiff
had requested an explanation of the nature of that condition, but
which had been withheld by the defendant, the engageinent created
by the former letter still existed. The Learned Counsel also ecru-
tended that there was a sufficient moral obligation (though of that
class which was consi lered by the moralists titan imperfect k:ntisua
the part of the defend-int to maintain the child. so as to form a good
basis for a contract, and theretOre he submitted that the p's.atiff
was entitled to recover. The Lord Chief Justice was of a coattail,
opinioh, and the plaintiff was nonsuited, but with leave to more
to set aside the nonsuit, and enter a verdict for 301. if the Court
should be of opinion that the letter constituted a perfect and
binding contract.
Mr. ei CARL ET T now moved for a rule for that purpose, and re,
peated the arguments lie had advanced at the time of the trial. He
contended that the moral obl-gation was as great on the part 0(4
patent to support an illegitimate child as it was to maintai r a legi-
timates:4w; and he thought when persons had, by their own tett,
admitteffthernseivee to be the parents of such children, they ought
not to have the facility of shaking off the obligation to maintain
them at their pleasure.
Mr. Justice BAY LEY thought there was a material diffveree
between legitimate and illegitimate children : and he was of opiniort
that the mother of an illegitimate child could not bring such an ac-
tion as this against any person unless she had previously adopted
the means pointed out by the law for ascertaining who was the
father. If so, then any bargain that might have been made by a
person with her to maintain the child was entirely voluntary, and
which he might nt any time put an end to; and it seemed to him,
that upon the legal construction of the letter written by the &find-
ant to the plaintiff in IMO, it did put an end to the voluntary Can.
tract created by the letter of 11118. The verdict, therefore, was cor-
rect, and ought not to be disturbed.
The other Judges concuticd—Rule refused.

COURT OF COMMON PLEAS. WESTMINSTER,
TtIiuRSDAY, JAN. 26.