The British Press; or, Morning Literary Advertiser.
London, England, 1825-11-09 00:00:00

LAW INTALLIGIBNCK.

COURT OF CHANCERY, 20EsDAY, Nov. 8. '
WALI.AMS v. VOWRINO.
After hearing the reply of Mr. PErYS, in this case, and Mr.
PitEsrom, who followed on the same side,
The LORD CHANCELLOR said, that this question arose upon,
nn estate, which appeared to be vested in a widow. as the adminis,
Pattiz If her husband. The Vice-Chancellor had thought it right to
reserve the question, whether she took the estate for her own
benefit, or as a trustee for the nest of kin. The Vice-Chancellor
did not in his decree enforce the reasons upon witich his opiniotl
was founded ; but he (the Lord Chancellor) !mew, that it was the
custom of the Vice-Chancellor, for his own satisfaction, to keep by
him the reasons which influenced his judgcleits and he (the Lord
Chancellor) thought it his duty to consult with the Vice•Chaneellor
on the subject. He should state to him his tiwn views, and learn
whether the Vice-Chancellor concurred with hint, or wherein they
diflited. Thus much he thought was due to the. Vice-Chaneellot
as well as to himself. Ile would have been glad to know if in the
manor there had been a surrender to administrators, sad if there
had been a surrender, who held under that surrender the beneficial
enjoyment of the property. I shall take it for granted that there ti
no instance of any such surrender on the court.rolls. It was true
the number of next of kin might be only two, but it might a. well
be 20 ; and it' it was 20, and it was the custom of the manor only!
to surrender to two, the copyhold may be split into aliquot parts.
Upon the whole of the case, he thought it his duty to converse with
the Vice-Chancellor, and would let the Counsel know his opiniod
on an early day.

FITZGIBBON W. MOORE. •
This case being called on. Mr. IloaNE proceeded with the strgul
ment in the absence of 3lr. Hart, who had not yet come into Court.
Mr. Home .thought this was one of the. boldest petitions ever pre-
sented to a Court. On public principles. he said, st was one of the
most important that had ever come before any Court. He did not
deny that a jurisdiction had been exercised by this Court when
children were taken tiom the care of their legal parent, and
given to another person, who made the child • ward of Court,
by a proper settlement of property. This teas a case where
the custody of a child was sought to be taken from its parent and
conferred upon other persons. Those persons were ?dr. and Mrs.
Fitzgibbon, and in so stating the case it was necessary he should
consider who Mr. and Mrs. litzgibbon were. Ile did not intend to
throw any undeserved aspersions upon them, hut should treat the
case as if the humblest individuals were concerned in it. The pe.
tition purported to come from the children, of which the Act o!'
Parliament left 11r. Moore the legal father. The petition Ism
really from Mr. Fitzgibbon and his wife—from an adulterous
wife, who eloped froin-her husband's house, and took with her hii
legal children, with whom site went to France, travelling under a fic-
titious moue, and kept possession of those children to the present time.
This was a case of the first impression. An adulterous wife and he':
adulterous paramour came into an English Court, saying. `• I ant
an adulteress!" "I ant an adulterer ! We hare violated your
marriage-bed; we have ruined your domestic peace; and we now
come forward to say that the children you believed to be yours were
procreated in adultery, and are our natural children, and therefore
it is that all those relations with respect to, marriage—the bond ot
civil society in this country—are to he broken asunder, and we aro
to have possession of your legal children. Ent those children had
rights • and would the Court sit in judgment upon those rights,
and, although they were born in wedlock, pronounce the children
illegitimate ? Legitiniac_y was a right in this country, even In case
there Wl4 no property. But to the present case there was a distinct
right. The boy was invested with an entail male by his father.
Might such a right be exchanged tor the settlement of Colonel
Fitzgibbon. limited as it was with a proviso which trade it abso-
lutely worthless?
The Long CHANCELLOR-111106 the guardian to that settles
ment?

Mr. 11ORNE—Lord Clare, my Lord.
The Loon CHANCELLOR—The question seems to me to be,
whether I ought to permit those persons to come in the name of
those infar. s, alleging that the infants are illegitimate. I am
called upon to consider a petition from children, who lam bound
to consider legitimate, stating themselves to be illegitimate, and to
secure their right to a provisional settlement of 1;,000/. Three per
Cents. by allowing them perhaps to wave a right, which, for aught
I know, may be six times the value.
Mr. Sue:Dee—My Lord, the entail male is stated on affidavit
to he 20001. a-year.
Mr. llortare resumed—What did the petition amount to? If
his Lordship allowed what was called the natural right, in opposi-
tion to the legal right, anti gave Mr. Fitzgibbon the sole sad un-
controlled management of the children, the settlement would still
become null and void, if his Lordship at any subsequent period
chose to control or direct the management, or in any way to inter-
fere. If his Lordship din not decide in favour of Mr. Fitzgibbon,
the settlement win so much waste parchment. This, he insisted.
was not a bona fide settlement, or one upon which an application to
the Court could be properly founded. The infants could not to
deemed wards of Court. But supposing it was a bona fide settle-
ment, it only gave the Court the jurisdiction of making the children
wards; it gave no power over the settlement. Upon the strength
of this settlement, however, it was contended that Mr. Moore
should lease his right to the custody of his own children, although
his liability to the burdens of his relation as a parent was manitest
and undeniable. To warrant such an interference no imputation
hail been cast upon Mr. Moore, except what was contained in the
affidavits before the Court. In those affidavits, or one of them. it
was alleged that the life of the infant would not be safe in the cus-
tody of his parent, and that the parent only desired possession of
the children to exercise cruelty upon them, for the purpose of in-
dulging his re/refitment against Mr. and Airs. Fitzgibbon. These
allegations stand on the affidavit of the Rev. Lord Brandon. They
were unsupported by the affidavits of any other person. Thew,.
happy mother of the child, who may be presumed to be acquainted
with Mr. Moore's feelings and intentions towards it, comes forward
with no such affidavit. Silence on her part was becoming, as it
also was en the part of her husband, who pleads his natural rights
in his affidavit, but does not allege that Mr. Moore desired to pour
out his wrath on the unofl'ending infants. The only one who de.
posed to the intentions of Mr. Moore with regard ton child whom
he swears he believes to be his own, was Lord Blandon ; and Mr.
Moore in his affidavit utterly denied ;lie ullegations of Lord Bran.
don, and adduced such reasons for the denial, that when the two
affidavits were compared, there seemed little doubt that Lord Bran-
don's was founded in mistake and was untrue, as fur as it was ee-
posed to Mr. Aloore'a. L File Learned Counsel here Tead and com-
mented upon the affidavit of Lotd Brandon, which had already
teen stated by the Solicitor-General.]
The LORD CHANCELLOR—Where are the children now?
Mr. SUODEN—My Lord, they are at Camden-town, in the care
of some respectable persons, by order of the Chief Justice of the
King's Bench.
Dlr. 110 RAE continued—Lord Brandon drew his conclusion
without giving any reason for his opinion; and in his affidavit
there was a suppression of truth. Mr. Moore answered the Noble
and Rev. Lord's imputation by a solemn denial, and if this denial
was not to be relied ou, where went all the respect we hail been
used to pay to the rights of parents? lle did not mean it as, an
aspersion on Lord Brannon, but if a parent was not to be be-
lieved on his oath respecting his child, but was left nt the mercy of
any unprincipled perjurer, it was better at once to sweep away all
considerations relating to parental authority. Mr. Moore's affida-
vit, in answer to Lord Brandon's, stated—that Lord Brandon was
uncle by half blood to himself, and uncle by whole blood to his hitt
wife, Diana. Ile remembered Lord Brandon calling on him at
Moore's Fort, whit propositions from Lord Clare. It was propaeed,
if he gave up his claim to the children that the damages shouts
be paid, that the divorce should pass the House of Lords unop-
posed, and that no alimony should be required. It he did
not agree to give tip his right to the children, Lord Brandon said,
that Lord Clare told him lie had interest enough with the Lard
Chancellor to have the divorce bill thrown out in the House of
Lorna.

The L 0111) CHANCELLOR—I must bay a IrCitd for the Char..
miler. His name is not mentioned in the copy of the affidavit
s hich I hold.

Mr. llonNE--It is so mertioned inithe copy I read from.
Mr. irAKEFIELD—NO such thing appears in Mr. Moore's afr.
davit, my Lord.
The LORD CIIANCELLOIL-.-I shall only say, that if any or.e
.wore it, it was untrue.

Mr. If oRNE continued to state the affidavit. Mr. Moore replied
to Lord Brandon, that nothing should Induce him in give up h:s
claim to the children ; that he defied Lord Clare, and would ap-
peal to the law. Ile positively swore that he never expressed
tiny doubt of the male child being his, but well remembered say-
ing that he had some doubt as to the female child. He never said
he would disinherit the boy and cut hint off with a shilling ; Ora
the contrary, he showed Lo Brandon!' atm Ito his will, mak.
ing over all his disposable property on the buy,' He further stateci,
that he asked Lord Brandon to witness the codleil, which Lord B.
declined, and the same day deponent signed the codicil, which still
continues in full force. He solemnly disclaimed having ever said
that he would get possession of the children to ansoythe Fitzgib-
bons, or any thing to that effect. Mr. Moors also stated hilts
affidavit, that he was suffering much in mind and body when Lord
Brandon called upon him, and that be expressed himself wamtty to
his Lordship. He entered into a history of his swerings, in iv hid,
he states, that when his wife's elopement was broken to him by MN
guardian, Baron Pennefather, be disbelieved ft, and was, from the
effects of the shock, for some time subject to apoplectic fit.. It was
said at the other side, that the natural parents long had possession
of the children ; they had possession, because the legal parent
could not recover it. They travelled in France antler fietiooes
names ; and when Mr. Moore consulted some eminent Frown
lawyers, he was told that however dear the law may he in Eneend.
it was doubtful whether the French law would deprive a mother et
the custody of chtldren under the age of eeren. Mr. Moore took out
a writ of lat6cor corpus in the Court of King's Bench, which was of
little service when the parties were out of the country, and it was not
till they tell into something like the contempt of that Omit, that
the writ was with great difficulty served upon Mr. Fitzgibbon. a'_
ter his return from France. It should be recollected son, that thatigt.
the children were so long in the custody of Mr. Fitzgibbon, thane was
no idea of making a settlement until Oct. 31, the day before Term-
Then that settlement was made, which was ahrgethet ink fee r.s
purposes, because it made no permanent provision bt the children.
If an order should be made on a petition it would,east a aloud on
those children during their fives. The father claimed the right ie.
the possession of his children, which the Mei and thesonstigeon
gave him, and which by his own conduct he beds e,rts
tinder these circumstances he was confident the Court 'llo2lc. •d:s.
L.:int the petition with the marked approbation It duAred-

•
Mr. HART ROW removed his up men:, on the same tilde: ita
which he was interrupted by the Auktg of the Court on Monday .
He adrcrted to thy principle upon which the CoLq oughtt jaw.

~-

1