The Sun.
London, England, 1827-03-28 00:00:00

ROLLS COURT, TUESDAY, MARCH 27.

The Court proceeded this evening to hear the petitions
which remained over from the last general petition day.

lIF.ECH V. JONES.

Mr. Boars stated, that in this case, the defendant, Mr.
Lewis Price Jones, acting under feelings which are much to
be commended, bad made a settlement of 1001. a year upon
his illegitimate child, Frances Beech, but happening shortly
after to quarrel with the infant's mother, and the instru-
ment by which he granted it having become mutilated by
the erasure of the signature, Mr. Jones took advantage of
this accident, and sought to evade the payment of the an-
nuity on the ground that no valid deed of annuity was in
existence. The Court, however, interfered to protect the
interest of the infant, and ordered another instrument to be.
executed by defendant, as well as a reference to the Master,
to ascertain what proportion of the annuity remained un-
paid. The object of the present petition was, that a guar-
dian should be appointed for the child, and an order made
for the application of the annuity to her future maintenance.
Mr. HORNE appeared for the defendant, and contended
that by the words of the instrument under which the infant
became possessed of this annuity, the father had reserved
to himself the power of applying whatever portion of the
annuity he thought proper towards the child's maintenance,
and paying over the balance to the trustees for her use.
The father did not wish to do any thing injurious to the
child's interests; on the contrary, as appeared by the Mas-
ter's report, he had expended two-thirds of the annuity for
her maintenance, and he now stood upon its rights tinder
the deed.

His Hom.ouit said, there was no proof before the Court
of impropriety on the part of defendant, whatever may have

been the facts of ilie.eise,•attffielent to warrant the pro-
spective interference of the Court. He had no objection,
hoiveier; to grant an order for the appointment of a guardian.

CROSSTIEWAITE V. WOOD.

In this case, an order had been made directing the Master
to inquire into the expediency of removing the defendants,
who arc females, under age, from under the guardianship
of the plaintiff, who is their mother. The Master was fur-
ther directed by the Court to determine upon a, proper
person who might be invested with that right of protecting
the infants, which the mother had acquired from nature,
and forfeited through immorality.
The :Waster having reported that it would be highly
prejudicial to the morals and interests of the infants that
they should continue under the guardianship of their
mother, had likewise decided that the mother should not
have her costs in reference to the order in question. On
the part of the mother, an attempt was this evening made
to subvert this part of the Master's report.
Mr. ROSE, for the infants had expected that this ques
tion would have been agitated no farther, and still hoped
his learned friend on the other side, Mr. Lynch, would not
compel him to descend into the scandalous details exhibited
on the face of the Master's report. He must, however,
generally state, that the report charged this—one did not
know how to designate such a woman—with licentiousness
the most unbounded. Though twice married, she had be-
come the mother of several illegitimate children ; and so
far from confining herself to persons of her own rank, had
descended to an illicit intercourse with footmen, and per-
sons of similar stations. If obliged to go more into detail,
he should lay before the Court such a scene of profligate
condect as had never been e:thibited before that or any
other tribunal.

Mr. L.:well, for the plaintiff, contended that she was
entitled to her costs.

The MAsTER of the Itor.La said, that as the immorality
of the plaintiff was the cause of the inquiry before the
Master, and as the facts upon the face of the report were
not contradicted by the plaintiff herself, she must pay the
costs of a proceeding which had been rendered necessary by
her own conduct.

COURT OF REQUESTS, "VINg STREZT, P ICCADILIX,

BARROW V. GILCHRIST.

This case arose out of a proceeding which took place at
one of the Police-offices.—George Barrow, the driver of a
hackney coach, had summoned Dr. J. Ilorthwick Gilchrist,
of No. 11. Clarges-street, fiir refusing to pay
him his legal fare, which was Ss., from St. Paul's Church-
yard to Clarges-street ; but the Doctor would only pay
him 2s.—The Magistrates on that occasion allowed the
plaintiff the extra shilling, but would not allow the coach-
man for his time, for which he now summoned the Learned
Doctor.

Dr. Gilchrist addressed the Commissioners, and said,
that he had reoeired a summons to attend the Court; but
he really did not know what it was about, as be had a par-
ticular appintment, he would feel obliged if the plaintiff
was called upon.
George Darrow was now called, who instantly appeared.

Barrow stated, that he summoned the Doctor foi•hisloss
of time, in summoning him to Queen-square Police-office,
which was tic

Comitisszowsn—Did not the Magistrates allow you for
your time ? Barrow—No, they did not ; and therefore I
appeal to another Court.
Dr. Gilehriet--Every thing, I assure you, gentlemen,
was settled there. Barrow—Not for my loss of time though.

COMMISSIONER—We cannot interfere with the decision
of the Magistrates, they have the power to allow you for
the loss of time—you should have applied. Barrow—So
I did, but I could get no answer.
commussioNzi--We cannot interfere--yon must apply
again to Queen-square. Barrow—Oh, I see how it is, yon
are a great man, and I am a poor Man, that is all the dif-
ference. I know I have a right to be paid for my time.
Dr. Gilchrist—l ssn not a great Iran. Barrow—:Oh
yes, you are, a much greater man than I am.
Dr. Gilchrist—Every thing was settled at Queen-square.
Barrow—Not my time, my time was not paid.
The Commissioners consulted together, and said, they
could not interfere. Barrow—Then I must apply to
another Court, whish I will do. I'll tell you what Sir,
you are amean man. . .

• Dr. Gilchrist--Gentlemen, do you suffer insolence in
your Court.
COBIMISSIONERS-Certainly not,• the case is dinoissed,
and let the parties retire.
The Doctor and the coachman then left the Court; the
former declaring, he would appeal to another Court.