The Sun.
London, England, 1858-12-23 00:00:00

IOYNTON Y. I3OYNTON.

Dr. Adams applied :to the Court for an interim order,
directing that the custody of a child, a boy of seven years
old, might be confided to his mother during the time interven-
ing between the trial of a cause fixed for hearing in the full
court for a dissolution of marriage between the parties.
The child was at present in the care of Mr. Manning, a
schoolmaster, and the father had applied to him for
his son, but in consequence of his representing to
him that he would be a sufferer if he removed the
child suddenly, an undertaking was given that the child
should not leave the place until midnight of the 23d Dec.,
by which time it is expected it would be decided who was
to have the custody of the child,the mother or father. The
mother of the respondent, Lady Boynton, was much at-
tached to the child, and if she would take charge of the
child, he thought it would meet the views of all parties.
Mr. Sharp, for Mr. Boynton; the father, said he had no
objection to the child being left with Lady Boynton, but if
any other party was named then he should contend that the
father both by law and right was the proper person to have
the custody of the child.

The Learned Judge said it was not a question involving
the education of the child. It was only a question of
whom for a few weeks should have the custody of the boy.
Mr. Sharp contended that the father, by the practice of
the Court of Chancery, was the most proper person. He
could show by argument—

The Learned Judge—l shall not decide on that
point, and as a hint to the learned gentleman
I reminded of the observation of a very emi-
nent judge, now departed, that on one occasion,
after hearing a very knotty point most minutely and elo-
quently argued, said, " I am much obliged to you, gentle-
men ; you have given me a great deal of information, but I
don't intend to decide upon that part of the case. (Laugh-
ter.) I merely throw out this for the guidance of the
learned counsel."

Mr. Sharp—My client has no objection to the boy being
entrusted to the care of his (respondent's) mother, provid-
ing an undertaking is given that he shall not be removed.

The learned Judge—There is a great deal of difficulty in
deciding questions such as these. If the child had
been placed at the school at which he now was
previous to the separation of Mr. and Mrs. Boyn-
ton, I should have decided that Mr. Manning
the schoolmaster was the person who ought to have cus-
tody of him, but it appears that he had been placed at that
gentleman's establishment, after the separation, by the
mother, which materially altered the case. I think tha t
Lady Boynton, who has great affection for the child is the
best person to whom the child can be entrusted. I there-
fore order that the child be given up to her, but that he be
not removed from her without an order from this Court, the
child's mother to have access to him at all times.

Mr. Sharp—Will your Honour issue the order immedi-
ately. Mr. Manning's undertaking expires to-night.
The Learned Judge—Mr. Manning, I am sure, will not,
after such a direction, give up the child to any but the pro-
per person. He would not act so disrespectful to the court.
It would be tantamount to setting it at defiance. That, I
am sure he would not do. The child is to be delivered up
to any trustworthy person appointed by Lady Boynton,
other than her son. - -

COURT OF BANKRUPTCY.
(Before Mr. Commissioner Goulburu.)
IN RE DAVIDSON AND GORDON.

The examination of this case was resumed this morning,
and several witnesses were examined, but nothing definite
transpired in consequence of the absence of certain parties.
There is no probability of the case being concluded to-day.

CITY SHERIFFS' COURT.
(Before Mr. Prendergast, Q.C.)
A PLAINTIFF FOR SIXPENCE-IMPORTANT TO SHIPOWNERS

•---BYRON V. WALTON AND OTHERS.

Plaintiff is a' shipowner, and sought to recover the sum
of 6d. for primage on 10s. 6d. freight introduced to his
vessel by defendant, a shipping agent. The plaint note was
for 1 ls., but the freight, 10s. Ed., was paid into court.
Plaintiff said it was customary for the owner to receive
the primage as well as the freight, unless a direct arrange-
ment was made to the contrary. If primage was allowed
it was always marked on the card.
Defendant produced a lot of cards on the backs of which
was written, " Frit-nage allowed." It was usual for agents
to take the primage. Some cards produced had nothing on
the back, and defendant said he had received primage.
His Honour said as the evidence appeared he must find
for plaintiff.

Plaintiff—lt is very important.
His Honour—lt is a small amount and a wretched case.
INCREASING DAMAGES IN A RUNNING DOWN CASE-
STRAKER T. THE LONDON GENERAL OMNIBUS COM-
PANY.

A solicitor appeared for the plaintiff, and Mr. Beard for
the defendants. This was a running down case, and £4 6s.
was claimed by plaintiff, a printer, of Bishopsgate-street,
for damage done to his truck by defendant's omni-
bus. It was a case of the usual kind as to the swearing,
and the only point of interest was the gradual increase of
the damages. -

Mr. Beard, for the defendants, pointed out that the acci-
dent occurred on the 10th September, and on the 14th, Mr.
Straker wrote demanding 30s. That money was offered by
defendants' servant and refused on the giound that the
damage was 50s. Plaintiff, .hdwever, offered to take 40s.
His Honour--And plaintitl seeks to recover Cs. ?
Plaintiff's Solicitoi—Yes, consequential damages.
His Honour would give a verdict for 30s. and costs.
Mr. Beard thought no costs should be allowed, as the
money had been offered, and would have to be paid by the
driver, who, after all, was not in fault.