The Sun.
London, England, 1810-07-11 00:00:00

LAW REPO'r.

COURT OF KING'S 14ENCIT,Tuty 10.

lIILt. V. ROBERTS.

Mr. *READER moved that a Warrant of Attorney,
granted by the defendant to the plaintiff, should be
set aside in the following circumstances. The-de-
fendant having two bills, amounting to 421., which
he wished to get discounted; applied to the plaintiff
for.this purpo4e, who consented to discount the bills,
the defendant taking 221: in cash, and the remainder
injewellery. Of these terms the defendant was
obliged to accept-, but on inquiring into the value of.
the articles of jewellery he had received, he found
they were not worth the one third of the s'tm he.
had been charged for them-. In these circumstances;
he did what was incumbent on him as an honest
man. He ,tendered‘ back to Mr: Roberts the 221.
and the jewellery, on his restoring to him the two
bills, and giving up the Warrant of Attorney,
which 'be had- granted him: This, however, Mr.
Roberts refused to agree to.—Rule to shew cause
granted.

ppcmy FOR ENCOURAGEDISNT OF CHRISTIANITY

AMONG THE CHILDREN OF JEWS:

Mr. GURNEY applied on the part of a Jew of the
name of Isaacs, for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, for
bringing up the body of his son, a youth not fifteen
yearS..of- age, for the .purpose of having him deliver--
ed up to his -.father's custody and keeping.- The,
father was a slopseller, &c. at Chester, and about
two years ago, being t hen in prison for debt, the boy
.in question had left the house, in consequence of a.
quarrd u ith- some-of the other children: The father
did not hear of his childfor some time, but at length
wn given to understand that he was in the'service
of a Medical (.;entleman,. on.Thwer Hill, where he
was Well treated. :It was not for a considerable time
afterwards that the father- ascertained that his son
had left his place, and, after the most anxious in-
quiry, he had lately discovered that he was in a
school, or in some way 'under the care and protec-
tion of a Society for the encouragement of Christi-
anity among the Children of Jews. There could be
no doubt that the father had the undoubted right to
the-custody and keeping of his own child. He had
applied to the Master of the School, and also to se-
veral Members of the Committee, begging that he
might be delivered up to him, but this had been re=
fused. It appeared even that they had removed
.the boy, into the country that hiS father might not
have the opportunity of seeing him. He had i)-7
plied for this purpose, and the answer was, that if
lie ehose to- go:200 miles to see the boy they would
permit him to-do so, and if it should appear that
he did. not re :iain in their care ,of his oi.Vit free wril;
that they woi.ild deliver him up to his fatlier.:. He
presumed to think, ho`wever; fhot the fat her. had a-
right to this indelgence going 200 miles" to
obtain it. He applied tot the Habeas Corpus to be'
diretted to the Master of the SChool aid three
Members of the Committee. _

Lord ELLBVI3OIIOUGH.-" The boy bas been
two years 'from übder the service of his father."
R~r. Justice LE 1-ILAN.C.--.." And that too because-
he could not maintain hint".

Mr. GURNEY.—" The father was prison.
He is now in business again, ana is anxious to have
his son.with who might he ueful in carrying
on the bu,ines.'"

Mr.Juitice LE 13t..ANc,-...." The boy remains where
be is of his own fret wish."

Mt. Justice Gliosc.-." And why should- we re-
-move him front so sate a custody, whereho is willing
to remain ? Accor4rtig to your own account of the
matter, he.is now under much better care than that
to which you propose to send him."..
GbasElt said, that on thii-principle, Jewish
parents were liable'to have their children taken away
from them.
LArd Ett.m.:Bottou6n.—" This is not a case in
which the child was taken away. You would be
more.torreel in Sayiht (he child had beep abandon-
ed by hiS father.. And now, when he has been
able to
.procure a safe and comfortable asylum, you
apply to take hitin away froin it without his con-
sent. Have you any case, without at all touching
on `tlie plea of religion, where such a thing ever
occurred ?"

Mr. GURNEY said, he made his application solely
on the right of the father to
.have his son.delivered
up to hind. The' father swore in his affidavit, not
that the child had been left without prote6lion, but
that he had left the house in consequence of a
quarrel with another of the children.
Mr. Justice GRosE.—" We issue these writs for
the benefit of the child, and here we will beStcon-
suit his interest by allowing -him to remain' where
he is."

. .
GURNEY-"Mr. GUItNEY" It .does not.appear, nor are we
sure, if the boy remains in his present situation of
his own free will. _

Lord ELLENBOROUGH.—" On the, shewing..6f
your own affidavhs it appears that he does."
Mr., GURNET•—" They have not allowed the fa-
ther to see him."

Lord ELLENBOROU6I7.•—•" They have offered to
do so, and even to deliver up the boy if it should
appear that he did not continue there of his own
free will."

Mr. GURNEY—" Yes, but to have seen him the
father must gone 200 miles."
Mr. 'Justice BAILEY—"- The father's guardian-
ship of the boy ceased when he was fourteen years
of age."
Lord EGLENEOROUGIi—" The boy was left un-
protected by his father two years ago. He haS since
that time been fortunate enough to find,a place
where he receives support, protection, and educa-
tion; and can we, in the exercise of our sound
judgment for the benefit of this boy, take him from
this protection which he .has fortunately found, and
'send him back to a situation where he may be again
exposed, even to the chance of being once more re-
duced to the state from which he has been rescued ?
Mr. Justice LE BLANC.—" There would have,
been a great difference in tke case, if the boy had
been, inveigled away. Here he left his father's vo-
tectiotiat a period when it could no longer avail
him."
• Mr. Justice GactsE--," lithe child had wished to
be removed, that Would have been a different ques-
tion ; we are in the use of granting these writs for
the benefit of the child only."-Rule refused.