The Sun.
London, England, 1834-11-14 00:00:00

COURT OF CHANCERY, Nov. 12.

IN THE MATTER OF LONG, AN INFANT.
In this case Mrs. Sandys, the mother of the infant, prayed
that an order of the Vice-Chancellor, appointing Dr.
Cooper, of Evesham, in Worcestershire, the guardian of
the infant, may not be confirmed, but that, on the contrary,
it may be discharged altogether; and that Mr. Thomas
Gasby, of Tavistock-straet, Bedford-square, may be ap-
pointed such guardian. There was a counter petition on
the part of Dr. Cooper, praying, among other things, that
Mrs. Sundys may be prohibited all access to her daughter,
the infant. _

The infant is the sole child of Mrs. Sandys, who had a
fortune of 18,0001. when she married Mr. Long in 1820.
This fortune was settled in such a manner that no provision
was made for the wife in the event of her surviving her
husband, and on the death of Mr. Long, in 1821, the
Court, upon the petition of Mrs. Long, varied the set-

- .
tlement in such amanner as to give Mrs. Long a power
of settling 5,0001. on her daughter, who is now about
thirteen years of age. In 1824, Mrs. Long married
her present husband, Mr. Sandys, and a few years after,
in consequence of some misunderstanding between her
and Mr. Long, the father of her first husband, Dr. Cooper
was appointed guardian of the daughter. Mrs. Long, in
about two months after this appointment, which was in July
last, went to Shipton-on-Stour, where her daughter is at
school, for the purpose of seeing her, but was much sur-
prised to learn from 11Iiss Snow, the mistress of the esta-
blishment, that Dr. Cooper had prohibited all intercourse
between the mother and her daughter. Mrs. Sandys im-
mediately applied to her friends, and at her and their in-
tercession an opportunity was afforded her to see her
daughter. This interview took place, however, in the pre-
sence of Dr. Cooper, who, in his affidavit stated that Mrs.
Sandys attempted to carry her daughter away from the
school, an attempt he was obliged to resist ; while Mrs.
Sandys on her part alleges that the doctor unnecessarily
assaulted and even bruised her. The fact seemed to be
that Mrs. Sandys.did intend to remove the child, and that
the doctor, having intimation of her intention, gave orders
that the mistress of the school should take precautions to
prevent it. Mrs. Sandys now alleged, as one of the grounds
of complaint against the Doctor, that, although he was al-
lowed 1001. a year for her daughter's education and main-
tenance, he placed her at a school where the terms for
board and tuition were only 221. a year, with a few shillings

For extras.

Sir C. WETHERELL argued at some length that although
nothing could be imputed to Dr. Cooper which derogated
from his character as a medical man and a gentleman, still
that as there was no imputation on the character of the
mother, it was not fitting that he should continue the guar-
dian of the child after the unhappy misunderstanding that
had taken place. The daughter, too, wns exceedingly
anxious that another guardian should be appointed.
The LORD CHANCELLOR (without calling on the Counsel
for Dr. Cooper to reply) said that the 'objection of the in-
fant to her guardian was rather in his favour. There could
be no doubt that she would prefer a guardian who spoiled
her by indulgence, or neglected to discharge the duties im-
posed on him. In his Lordship's opinion no case had been
made out to justify the removal of Dr. Cooper from the
situation of guardian to the infant. Still, however, he saw
no reason for complying with that part of the petition of
Dr. Cooper which required that the mother should not
have access to the infant.
Some discussion took place with respect to costs, and it
was at length agreed that the costs of the petition of the
mother and guardian should stand against each other, and
that the infant should pay her own costs.