The Sun.
London, England, 1814-03-04 00:00:00

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT .OF CHANCERY, NlA.K.cri 3.

CALLINt V. OALLINT. •'.• •
In this case, in which
.a bill hail been filed, on
the part of the-next of kin, in the names of two
infants of the name of Gallini, against their fa-
ther, praying' for specific performance of an al-
leged aereernent, into which he had entered With
the mother, previous to, and' as a condition of,
the nuirriage, that. the father should-renounce the
Roman Catholic- RergiOn, which he then pro-
fessed, and that the children should be educated
in "the PrOtestant
Sir SAMUEL Ro-N4t:l,,y moved against a person
taking' on himselfthe style and title of Sir Ed- •
ward Perrott, and an Attorney named, Chester,-
for impeding or defeating the service Of:a-Writ of
Habeas Corpus, which been directed by.his Lord-
ship, on the-application of the defeneapt,-the fa-
ther of the infant plaintiffs', to ;Nlary,Gallini, the
mother, calling on her to bring into Court the
bodies of the two infants. His Lordship had, on
an application to that effect, ordered-that service
of the notice on Mr. Chester, who had-been At-
torney for Mrs. Gallini in -a. motion of a si(uilar
kind, in the Court of King's Bench, should- be
esteemed good service ; the notice' was according-,
lv served on Mr. Chester, but that Gentleman
now stated that he was no longer - Mrs. Gal!ini's,
Attorney; and on a-person calling stra house in
Molineux-street, Edgiiare-road,- occupied by Sir
Edward Perrott, the ,brother-in-law of Mrs. Gal-•
lini, where it Was understood she was resident at.
the time, the rerson so calling for the purpose of
serving the notice was refused- access to •her by
Sir E. Pcrrott, who informed the person that she
could-not be seen,burthat she was already aware
of the business, notice of the applitation having
been served on her Attorney. - It ftra47.of import- ,
twee to the deftndatit 'in this case, that he should
have the .infant plaintiffs put under proper care,
the mother not- being a tit person to have the cus-
tody of them, and the defendant liaving lately.
been under the- necessity of.hringing an action
against a Gentleman fur 'criminal conversation
with her.
The -LORD•CITANCELLOIT asked, did that persotc
whom Sir Samuel Romilly called .Sir Edward Per-
rott, admit that Mrs. Gallini was in the house at
the time the person making the affidavit went to
serve the notice upon her i
fir SAMUEL ROMILLY admitted that did not dis-
tinctly appear.
The Linn' CHANCELLOR said, whether this Sir
Edward Perrott, Mr. Chester the Attorney, or
any one else, on any pretext whatever, attempted
to interpose to the effect of disappointing the ser-
vice of any process or order of that Court, -his
Lordship- warned them that he should order the
AktorneyzGeneral to proceed against all of them.
His Lordship added, Sir Samuel Romilly had
better take a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and if this
Sir Edward Perrott should interpose himself to
prevent the execution of his Lordship should
bold his doing so to be a very high offence ; and
he thought it right to say so before-hand, that
he- might take what care he could to prevent this
person from involving. himself in so high a
crime.

Sir SAmust, ROMILLY observed, that the same
person was already indicted for assaulting- the
person by whom the notice. was to have been'
served.•

The LORD CHANCELLOR said, this was .a far
greater and very different offence. His Lordship
took it for granted, that Mr. Chester was actu-
ally, and bona fide out of the cause, and had ceased
to have any concern of any kind in it ; else he
was not aware what he was' abolit.. His Lord-
ihip wished to know was he a Solicitor • before
this Court.?. The children, it had been stated,
were at a boarding-school at Brighton, but that
the name of the mistress of the school was not
known ;_that, his Lordship thought, might tie
easily a,sccrtained, and his Lordship should have
no difficulty of making an order on the mistress to
bring the children into Court.--In the course of
the day,

Mr. WAKERELD appeared on the part of Mrs.
Gallini, and admitted service of the notice on her,
through Mr. Chester. her Attorney. The order,
however, had been pronounced by his Lordship
so long ago as the 21st February, and the notice
had not been served on Mr.- Chester till the even-
ing of the Ist of March. It was impossible, there-
fore, that Mrs. Gallini could have been ready to
instruct her Attorney the parties, besides, were
at present all necessarily obliged to be in the
country, as a trial of very, great importance to
them would, in all likelihood, come on at the As-
sizes at Reading, on Monday, the result of which
would, in all probability, have a,very considerable
effect upon. the fate of the Writ of Habeas Corpus,
and of the suit altogether.
TheLono CHANCELLOR, in these circumstances,
ordered that the mutter should stand over till this
clay sennight.