The Sun.
London, England, 1804-06-22 00:00:00

SARAkt ROSE &J. 6ETTLING.

The Plaintiff is a widoW, living at «''el+-End,
near Great 11.1.irloW. The Def-ndant hqs had some
domesric disputes, which are before the Ecclesias:i.
cal Court, and which haVe oCcasico'cd his sep;iracion
from his wife. , The Plaintiff received as,a lodger
Mrs. Gettling, 'who represented herself as 4 widow,
and engaged f:)r he: board with Mrs. Rose, at the
yearly rme of
GAP:RjW, ins. the Praintil.t said, th;:t.
Delendint's being taken ill, and nearly at the
point of death, acknowledged I:er' usband was Ii v:.
ing, and the rule'of law is, ch:zt if a hu-hand :o!-61
his wife out of doors (in the rfrords `KeN-
Yoti), "he 'sends her out with crcdit her ho:•ad,
and chose whn re ye her, have a rig); of action
abainst "the huSlitnd."

- -
A verdid was tdken for the Pllintifr, stOjea to a
ref:ttetiee, fit Mc. Low.rEN; Anti
the. question in the Ecet,:,,i.istieat C,,uct' is co Oe de-
cided by the same Ger:ll:Jim-tn.

WILD V. GRIFFIN.

An,A.ffion for
_l3l. upon the Di•fentlant's prnmia.
sory note to the Plaintiff: ,
The fi-t'endant, an hair dresser, had a bastar
it
child ,worn to at Clerkenwell : the mother be_.
ing trough to hid, became burthensome to the.
•pari,h, on which the fither was aparehended•: the
Parish-Officers wanted 401. lq way .of
• he bad...no such money, but as he had lately married
another woman, win: %vas also with child by him,
and wanted to conceal in his wife his former amour,
he give the offic.ers ra. guineas, and this pr:rnissory
note for 131. more.. The child did not live above a •
Month: Mr. GIBBS contended that the Parish 011 i..
cers were ten_foid overpaid by the 14. guineas, and
that the note for 131. was.given..ithout con,,idera-
tion, and that therefore there ought to be a verdit -
for the Defendant. He said ,there was a ease now.
before the Court for its opinioßtwhether any of these
agreements for composition with, parishes for the
support of bastard children were va!id in point of law. He knZW:that some of the most eminent men
at the Bar doubted that very much, and were inclined
'to think that nothing but an agreement, under an
Order of Affiliation, to ray a certain sum
.weekly
for the maintenance of a bastard, was legal.. He in-
sisted on it in this case the Defendant ought nut to
be called iipcin 'Co pay this note,
It appeared also that the Parishes in general are
in the habit of taking sums of money from the
fathers of bastard children, by way of indemnity/ for
the expense of supporting them, and that they are
Supported at the Workhouse,
-&c, tinder the, care -
of Parish Officers. Upon which Lord ELLENBO.
ROUGH said; lie was extremely sorry to heat it :
. he thought it the most mischievous of systems, as
it tended to negligence
,about the lives of children,
'and. that was the most culpable of all negligence.
It was a praffiec which ought, to be repressed,
for it. was one in which it was the pecuniary in-
terest of those who had to provide for the children,
to let them die as fast as possible. However, his
Lordship rock occasion to state, that he did not apply .
this observation to the Parish in this case ; and also
to observe, that in most of the Parishes of the Me-
tropolis these children, as well as other persons, were
treated with tenderness and humanity, as indeed
they ought to be, for they were the most pitiable
and helpless of mankind. The Defendant was liable
to indemnify the Parish, and one month, with
the funeral expenses, was all that could be obligatory
upon him. Fourteen pounds have been paid, so that
for the note, no consideration seemed to have been
given.,.—Verdin for the Defendant.