The Sun.
London, England, 1836-01-25 00:00:00

CHANCERY COURT.-(THIS DAY.

TIIE ATTORNEY-GENERAL u. PEARSON.
The Loan CHANCELLOR was occupied the whole morning
with the further arguments in this appeal from the decision of
His Honour the Vice-Chancellor. The case related to a
chapel at Wolverhampton, founded in the year 1701, 4, for the
use of Protestants Dissenting from the Established Church."
The original foundation, which had been e:msiderably in-
creased, after many changes, was at theTtesent moment in
the possession of persons professing ljnitarian doctrines.
The relators contended that it was never intended by
the original founder that' persons of that persuasion should
be tolerated in the chapel, and the principal question in the
case was whether under the words " for the use of Protest-
ants dissenting from the Established Church," such a sect
could be admitted to partake in the management of the chapel.
Sir Wm. Horne was heard on Saturday in favour of the ap-
peal, and this morning
Air. JACOB followed on the same side.
The case appears likely to occupy the whole of to-day and
to-morrow.

EXCHEQUER COURT-(THIS DAY)•

NEW POOR LAW AMENDMENT ACT.-LANG V. SPICER.
This was an action brought against the Mayor of Ports-
mouth for assault and false imprisonment. Both parties being
anxious to save expense, agreed that the facts should be stated
in a special case, and the opinion of the Court taken upon tke
construction to be put on the words of the 57th section of the
Poor Law Bill. The case was argued this morning, when
the following facts were laid before the Court. In the month
of August, 1892, the plaintiff had an order of afiliation
made upon him for the payment of the sum of 2s. a week
to the parish officer of Portsea, as the reputed father of a
bastard child ; which he paid regularly. The mother of the
child got married to a labourer, named Joseph Toe, in No-
vember, 1834; she kept the child, and received the money for
its support from the parish. In March, 1835, the plaintiff
learned some of the provisions of the Poor Law Amendment
Act, and refused to pay any more money. The parish
officers continued their payments to the mother, and had the
plaintiff summoned before the defendant, who having heard
the case, decided that the plaintiff was bound to con-
tinue the payment, upon the order of the affiliation, so long
as the child was chargeable to the parish. The plaintiff
refused and was committed upon a warrant signed by the de-
fendant, the plaintiff then paid. the money, and brought his
action for the arrest and imprisonment. Foe, the man who
married the mother of the child had hs. a-week, and had.
himself, his wife, the child in question, and his own child to
maintain. The question for the Court to decide was, whether
upon these facts the plaintiff was bound to continue the par
mcnt upon the order after the Poor Law Bill came into ope-
ration, the 57th Section of which said, that any man marrying
a woman who had a bastard child, such child became part of
his family, and he was bound to maintain it so long as he was
able until the age of sixteen, or until the mother's death-
The case was argued for the plaintiff by Mr Thessiger, and
for the defendant by Mr. Dampier.
The JUDGES then delivered their opinions seriatim. Tuleywere clearly of opinion that after the Act in question b,„arne
the law of the land, the putative father of a bastard child was
not bound to make any payments for the support of Such child,
after the mother's marriage to a man who, as in dais case, was
able to support it. They were not called uport to give any
p oium? upon the policy of the law, but to eonstrue its words
according to their legal meaning. By tueh marriacre of the
mother of the bastard child it beeaale part of the family of
her husband, and the order, if ;-„;),t destroyed, was at all event,
suspended during the life pi the mother, or so long as it wail
not chargeable to floe parish.
JudgerPeni was then given for the plaintiffs, with 101. de
msges, as agreed apon in the special case,