The Sun.
London, England, 1858-11-09 00:00:00

REMARKABLE TRIAL IN MADRAS'.

(From the Madras .21thenceurn of Sept. 29.)
Turning to the affairs of our own Presidency we
have first to notice the proceedings of the Scotch Free
Church Mission in a recent case of conversion.
From the peculiar circumstances connected with
the case, and from the fact that it has been before
the Supreme Court, much attention has been drawn
to the matter. The facts, as disclosed in the Supreme
Court on the 29th inst., were shortly as follows. A
respectable native of the Chetty caste had a son
who was being educated at Patchappah's School,
one of the best native educational institutions in this
Presidency. The son appears to have attended school
for upwards of a year, when in some way or other
he was led to the Scottish Mission, and there re-
quested to be instructed in the doctrines of Chris-
tianity. Thereupon one of the missionaries appointed
an instructor, and the youth appears to have gone
to the mission premises for a period of about three
months. In the beginning of this present month
the boy's father went on business to Pulicat, and
the boy took this opportunity of running away
from home to the mission premises. He was re-
ceived by the missionaries, and lived at the mis-
sion. This took place on the 13th instant. On
the father returning from Pulicat, a day or two
afterwards, h e immediately made inquiries, and found
where his son was. He instantly went to the mis-
sion, and applied for the restoration of his child ;
he was told by one of the reverend gentlemen con-
nected with the establishment that his son was at
perfect liberty to go away if he chose to do so. On
the son being appealed to, he refused to accompany
his father. The latter then obtained a writ of
habeas corpus, and on Friday the case was argued.
Affidavits were read on both sides detailing tL•
facts mentioned above. The question for the court
to consider was of course whether the youth was
of an age to act for himself. The father and other
members of the family swore that the boy was a
little over 13, giving the Tamil month and year in
which he was born. The son, in his affidavit,
swore that he believed himself to b 3 16, because
his mother (now dead) three years ago had con-
sulted his. horoscope when he was ill, and told him
that he was 16, and because some members of his
family—who were not specified—had said at cer-,
tain times that which induced him to believe he was
16. The Advocate-General and Mr. Mayne ably
argued the case on behalf of the mission, and Mr.
Branson as ably conducted the part of the father.
The two former gentlemen contended that the
boy's statement as to his age ought to be credited,
and urged that even if he had not attained the
legal age of discretion he was old enough to act
for himself in a matter of this kind. They
likewise urged that it would be a hard case
to send him back to his parents, seeing that
the boy had ;become an outcast by eating food
prepared by pariahs and by cutting off a. tuft
of hair, the sign of his caste. They contended
that no member of his family, could, under these
circumstances, hold the slightest communication
with the boy, and urged that his dread of being
treated by his father " as a tiger would a sheep,'
should have weight with the court. The Chief
Justice, Sir C. Rawlinson, called upon the learned
gentlemen to show that an infant could make him-
self an outcast. They were unable to do so. After
lengthy speeChes on both sides, the Court delivered
judgment nearly as follows :
Rawlinson, C. J.—ln this case a writ was ob-
tained ordering Mr. Braidwood and others to pro-
duce Narrainsawmy Chetty, who was dc tlined in
their custody. The return was made in which it
- was suggested that there was no desertion at all.
From the affidavits on both sides, and forming his
conclusions from them, he could not say that he was
not satisfied that restraint had not been used, and
he could not refrain from observing that it was a
matter of much regret and deserving of strong re-
probation that, without giving notice to the parent,
persons in the position of the defendants should con-
sent to break asunder the ties which bound father
and son together—ties of the dearest nature, and
whichwere recognised by every civilised nation since
the foundation of the world. It could do no good to
the religion to which they belonged, and which he
publicly professed—this taking advantage of an in-
clination of a runaway schoolboy, or of youths not
emancipated by the& parents, or the law of
the country in which ritzy resided, to throw
off the parental control. The question on which
the judgment of the court must turn is, was
the boy of an age to be considered eman-
cipated, Or to thrttw offthe control of his parents—
to act for himself at the time that he left his
father's house for the Mission Institution ? His
lordship was not competent to form an opinion from
the appearance of the boy:. lAe did not doubt that
there were boys of 14 considerably bigger than the
child before the court. Others no doubt of that
age were considerably smaller. Putting aside,
therefore, the inference to be drawn from the ap-
pearance of the boy himself, he referred to the affi-
davits. • In support of the age of the boy beinr, 14
years, he found that the father, uncle, and brother
of the boy fixed. the month, and day of the month
and year in,which he was born. On the other hand
Mr. Braidwood stated his opinion of the to 's age.
What did the boy undertake to swear ? He said
that three years ago when he was dangerously ill
his mother took his horoscope, and then made the
observation that he was 13 years old. How many
mothers could read horoscopes Why was it re-
ferred to ? He was supposed to be dying. In
contradiction of this, there were the three state-
ments fixing the month and the year of the boy's
birth. The next time he hears about his age is the
time when it was proposed to give him in mar-
riage. He was then told that he was one month
under 16 years. He does not say by whom he is told.
Weighing, therefore, both pieces of evidences, and
the means possessed by the friends of the boy for
fixing his age—they swore exactly to the d—the
age stated to be his by his father a.ppeared ay
to be
the correct one. The Mission House might be a
proper place for young men to go to, but it was
not the proper place for boys to be received into
who it was told were under age, or who were in-
capable of forming a judgment for themselves. Of
this description was the boy before the court, and
he ought not to have been taken into the institution
without inquiry. The learned counsel had cited a
case decided by his lordship in 1853. From the
principles enunciated in that ease he did not retire,
but a case had been since decided in Englind
which had authorised the exercising of larger
powers under writs of habeas corpus in cases h ?re
the rights of parents and children were concerned.
Acting upon the authority of that case, he felt
no difficulty in coming to a conclusion on the pre-
sent one, Takiog, the case of Alicia Race ?A his

guide, he could come to no other conclusion than
that his father was entitled to the custody of his
child. The father here came before the court with-
out any slur on his character—he .%,as shown
to be bringing up his child in the way he should go,
sending.him to one of the moat
excellent educa-
tional institutions in Madras--Lis.,'-is lordshiphad
visited the school frequently since his .arrival in t1-.Le
country—and a father was not to be u.l).rived
of
the custody of his child because the child-ii. 7 a In,
ment of irritation or other hasty feeling 600 t o
run away from his father's roof. On a concidera -
tion of all the circumstances of the case, his farZ
ship felt bound to order that the child must be I • 3-
stored to his father.
Bittleston, P. J.—The only question of fact
as to the age of the boy. On the one side the affi-
davits of the relations fix the day of the birth, and
prove the boy to be under the age of 14 ; on the
other hand Mr. Braidwood says that he believes the
boy to be 16 ; but it is noticeable that the native
person who joins in Mr. Braidwood's affidavit does
not pledge any belief with respect to the age, which
Mr. Braid*ood fixes at 16. If the boy is 16 years
old he has attained his majority, and is entitled to
be allowed to go where he pleases. In the case of
Alicia Race, the Court came to the determination
that at all events up to the age of 14 the right
of the natural guardian was absolute, unless he for-
feited it through some misconduct. Accordingly in
that case, against the will of the child, the Court
ordered her to be delivered to her mother. There-
fore, it is to be assumed that if this was the case of
an English boy brought before the Queen's Bench,
he would be ordered to be delivered to his father.

It is said that the case does not apply to Hindoo
parents. But the duty of this Court to administer
English law, with due regard to the habits, cus-
toms, and feelings of the natives, and we are spe-
cially directed by statute to preserve the Hindoo
father's right of parental control. We are satisfied
that this child is under 14, and here more than in
England we are not to interfere with the control of
the 'father. We should be very sorry if
anything in the order made should subject the
child to ill consequences—we may be permitted
to express a hope thatthe child will not be subjected
to any ill-treatment, that it will be treated with
affection and regard ; but when it is said that we
ought to take into consideration the Hindoo
law of caste as a reason for refusing the writ
the argtimeni cannot be acceded to, because in
Alicia Race's casejudgpentprocceded in part upon
the authority of similar cases decided in India, the
court having approve& of the dictum of Mr. Justice
Patteson with reference to those cases. He could
not see, therefore, that the consequences arising
from the law of caste, even if they were such as had
been suggested, which was by no means made out,
afforded any ground for refusing the writ. The
gentlemen who had acted in the matter did so from
the highest and best motives. It did, however,
strike him that when the boy, who was under age,
came to them first, before they put him under in-
struction they might have told his family what was
going on. It would have been better had this been
done, Had it been done most probably the case
would net have gone so far as it had. His lordship
concluded by observing that the court had nothing
to do with the question of religion which was
mixed up in the case.
'After the delivery of the judgment an extraordi-
nary scene took place in court. The father
approached his son in a supplicatinrattitude, and
with tears in his eyes asked him to come home.
The boy remained firmly seated in his chair, and
refused to move. Two officers of the court were
ordered up, to assist the father in carrying off the
refractory youth, who then declared that he feared
ill-usage. The Chief Justice informed him that if
he received any ill-treatment he might apply to the
court for protection. The boy then quietly walked
away with his father. A large number of Chetties
had assembled to hear the case tried, and the
greatest excitement prevailed among them at its
• conclusion. As far as we can learn, the general
feeling of the public is decidedly in favour of the
decision passed by the Supreme Court.