Star.
London, England, 1814-04-08 00:00:00

1.4111 INTRLLIGEATE.

COURT OF CHANCERY, APRIL 7.

GALLINI V. GA WM.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY••—" I understand that you
Lordship has m.tde an order that Miss GaDin; should
be under the protection of Mr.. Noble, until the seve-
ral suits between the parties shall he decided."
The Lottn Cti.6ret,Lon-44 I have."
Sir SAMUEL ItoMILLY—" What order has you,
Lordship niatle relative to the boy r'
The Lotto CHANCELLOft-" That he ought to he
given up to his father."
Mr. IlAn r—" It had been stated to your Lord-
ship that this child is only four years of age, and of a
very delicate constitution."
Sir Samuel, ROMILLY" There is no affidavit to
that erect."

Mr. HART—" Mrs. Gallinin will, if allowed time,
make an affidavit to that effect."
The Lola) CHASCELLOII-4e This case is not simi-
lar to that of children being wards of this Court. It
comes before me in the shape of a Habeas Corpus—and
I can only act with it a 6 Lord Ellenborough would,
that is, to declare that every father has a right to the
possession of his child. It the child is in a delicate
state of health, the paternal care may be as good as
the maternal care."

Mr. HA 111'." I do not know that your Lordsh;p
had been informed that Mr. Noble is a single man ?"
The LORD CH.tNCLLLOH-=" Yes ; it has been so
stated to me ; but he has a daughter about the same
age as Miss Gf,llini. I cannot give my reasons for
my order publicly, and you both are aware why 1
cannot."
The child was accordingly ordered to be delivered
to the father.

STEEL V. THE EARL OE LANDAFF AND EVANS.
Mr. HART moved, that the Injunction granted in
this cause by his Honour the VICE CHANCELLOR,
should be dissolved, the defendants' answers having
been filed.

The circumstances were, that Mr. Steel, now de-
ceased (the late husband of the plaintiff), lent the
EMI 41i Landaff, in the year 1808, a sum of money,
tor which the Noble Earl settled an annuity of £6OOl
per annum on Mr. Steel and his heirs for the life-1
time of the Earl of Land •ff, secured on an estate,
which it was then supposed he had only a life-interest
in ; the other defendant, Evans, was the trustee of
Mr. Steel. The Noble Earl had found out since that
period, that he had a fee•simple title to the estate,
and had mortgaged it to the other defendant for
£5OOO, who was now going to foreclose his mort-
gage, and sell the estate. The bill was filed, praying
that they might be restrained from disposing of it, as
it was the security fur the plaintiff's annuity. The
Learned Counsel contended, that the injunction ought
to be dissolved, on the ground that the mortgag:e
had a right to foreclose and sell. It was a thing that
took place every day, to dispose of an estate, setting
forth what the incumbrances were. Th.s was what
the Nohle Earl and the other defendant intended to
do. It did not injure or depreciate the plaintiff's se-
curity ; for, let the estate pass into whose hands it
might, she had still the estate as her security. Under
those considerations, he trusted his Lordship would
!dissolve the injunction.
Mr. Lgaen and Mr. Wang, Counsel for the de-
fendant Evans, repeated the argument of Mr. Hart.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY, COIMSeI for the plaintiff,
contended, that the injunction ought ni t to be dis
solved. lie admitted, that the doctrine laid down by
!lis Learned Friends would be applicable in any case
not situated as this was, for here the mortgagee was
the trustee of the plaintiff, and wanted to do away
with the security which he had in trust to preserve for
the payment of the plaintiff's annuity. The Learned
Counsel was here stopped by the Loan CHANCELLOR
saying, '6 Let the injunction be dissolved."