Star.
London, England, 1830-07-20 00:00:00

CANINE MADNESS.

ABSTRACT of a DILL (as amended by the Committee) to prevent
the spreading of Canine Madness.
Clause I. Magistrates and others, upon► information of Canine
Madness, empowered to issue Notices, ordering all Dogs to be con.
fined.
11.—Persons permitting Dogs to be at large after notice, to be
subject to a penalty of not more that 51.
111.—Dogs found at large after notice may be destroyed.
IV.—Relates to recovery and application of Penalties.
V.—Prescribes the Forms of Information and Conviction.
Vl.—Justices may proceed by Summons for the recovery of
Penalties.
Vll—Distress not unlawful for want of form. Warrant of
Commitment when not void.
Vlll.—Venue in proceedings against persons acting under this
Act.

HOUSE OF LORDS.—MowDAT, JOLT 19.
MUNRO v. ROSS, an= SAUNDERS, alias woOriarax.
This case (which excited considerable interest among the Gentle.
men of the Bar, on account of its novelty) was an appeal from a
judgment pronounced by the Court of Session of Scotland, on an
action relating to the peronal slates—viz. filiation and legitimacy of
the respondent under the following circumstances:—
Alexander Roes, of Cromartie, came early in life to London,
where he was employed as a clerk in the military agency-house
of Ross and Company. In 1777, he married a Miss Emmett, and
about that time he was admitted to partner into the firm,
in which he continued until its failure in 1804. He was
afterwards employed by the assignees in winding up the
affairs of the house. About 1810, he commenced an illicit con.
nection with a Miss Woodman, who represented herself as the
wife of an officer, named Saunders. Shortly afterwards Mrs. Ross
died, and in 1811 the respondent was born of Miss Woodman,
and represented to be the eon of Mr. Saunders, by which name
Miss Woodman and the respondent were known until 1815,
when the respondent was christened at the parish church of St.
Pancras, by the name of Ross, and registered as the son of
Alexander Ross. Subsequently, in the same year' the parents
went to Scotland, and were married. After having resided there
for a few weeks, they returned to London, where they domi-
ciled until 1820, when Alexander Ross died. It appearedin evi-
dence, that the object of Alexander Ross, In going to Scotland to be
married, was to legitimate the respondent, that he might be capable
of succeeding to some freehold estates which he had in that country
(as by the law of Scotland, the subsequent marriage of the parents
legitimates children born out of wedlock). Shortly after the death
of Rowe, the respondent's guardians undertook the management of
the estate, whereupon the appellant, who should be entitled to those
estates in case Ross had left no legitimate issue, commenced an action
in the Court of Commissaries, in order to establish the bastardy of '
the respondent. The court, having heard the arguments and evidence
advanced on both sides,were equally divided respecting the merits of
the action, and judgment went for the defendant according to the
practice of that Court in such cases. From this Interlocutor an
appeal was brought to the Court of Session, among the Judges of
which there was also a difference of opinion ; hut the majority being
in favour of the respondent, the:judgment of the Court of Commis-
saries was affirmed, from which decision an appeal was brought to
the House of Lords, where it was argued in this session by Dr.
Lushingtou and Mr. Jeffrey, on bealf of the appellant, and by Alr.
Brougham and Mr. Dundas, on behalf of the respondent.
The case having come on for judgment this day,
The Earl of ELDON observed that, after the decision of their
lordships in the case of Sheddon v. Patrick, wherein a person born
in America antecedent to the marriage of his parents claimed a right
of inheriting estates in Scotland which belonged to his father, on the
grounds that his father, being a native of Scotland, and having been
married to the claimant's mother after the birth, he, the claimant,
should be considered a legitimate child according to the law of Scot-
land; but their lordships thought otherwise, and decided that the
character of bastardy which attached to him at his birth. by the law
of his native country was indelible. Their Lordships had come to
a similar decision in the case of Lord Strathmore, who was born in
England before the marriage of his parents. After those decisions,
he (the Earl of Eldon) did not see how they could of the judg-
meet of the Court below.

The LOAD CHANCELLOR, having detailed the circumstances of
the cue as above, observed, that the reason why children born be.
fore the ceremonies of marriage had been gone through by their
parents were legitimated, by the subsequent marriage of their
parents, by the law of Scotland, was founded on a 'presumption,
proceeding from a fiction, that such parents had been married
by mutual consent, at the period of the conception, the consent
of the parties being deemed a valid marriage by the law of
Scotland. But the fact of the respondent's parents having been
domiciled in England, and never having been in Scotland
together till long atter the period of the conception., excluded
altogether the presumption of their having been married at that
period, since they were domiciled within the task:Nei of Eng.
land, the laws of which admitted of no such presumption. The
fact of the marriage having been locally celebrated In Scotland
could have no of on the question, as the parties had almost im-
mediately returned to England. The legitimation of children was not
a matter of contract. The les loci contractue, where it differed from
that of the domicile, had no effect on the legal consequences of
the contract. Ills lordship then referred to the ease of Couti, so often
cited by Counsel at the bar. It was this : a Frenchman had a child in
fornication in his own country, he afterwards went to reside in Eng-
land with his mistress, and there married her. AP or his death the
child claimed his succession in France, where legitimation by sob.
second marriage was allowed, and he was adjudged entitled to his
claim, because being born in France he had an indelible capacity of
being there legitimated ; and the locality of the marriage was
deemed of no importance' its validity not being disputed. Accord-
ing to this decision, his Lordship observed, rt seas the Ice loci eel-
' Fines el elousicilii, and not the lea led anstewetue, should guide
their Lordships judgment in this ease. Taking the whole circum-
stances of the case, and the authorities which bore on the subject,
into consideration, he was of opinion that the judgment of the
Court below should be ferreted.
Lord WTNTOSD briefly enneurred in the sentinseuts of the lard
Chancellor, and the judgment of the Court of Session was reversed.