Star.
London, England, 1810-08-20 00:00:00

DE MANDEVILLE v. DE AIANDEVILLE.

The plaintiff in this case was the father, and the
defendant was the mother of a female child, who was
a Ward of Court. The father, being a Frenchman,
was an alien enemy ; and the mother was an English
woman. Disagreements had arisen between the hus-
band and wife, in consequence of which they se-
parated. The husband went abroad, and, on his re.
turn, filed a bill for having his child delivered up to
his custody ; or, for having her placed in such cus-
tody, as that access to see and converse with her
should at all times be afforded to the father. An
affidavit had been filed by the father, which it would
be improper to make public ; and, on a reference to
the Master, he had made a report in favour of the
=other, as being the person most proper to have the
custody of the infant—the father having access to her
at certain times.

Sir S. RoMILLY, for the defcnd.,nt, now moved that
this Report of the Master be approved of.
Mr. BELL, on the part of Mr. De Mandeville,
begged that the case be postponed till next petition
day, he having had no opportunity of perusing the
affidavits before the Master. No inconvenience could
result to the defendant from this arrangement, she
having at present the custody of the child. The
plaintiff, who was the father, had surely a right to
look into the evidence on which the Master had acted,
and to consider if it could be rebutted.

Sir SAMUEL ROMILLY pleaded the anxiety of mind
in which the mother was kept, as an argument in fa-
vour of the immediate consideration, and, if it should
deserve it, approval, of the Master's report.
The LORD CHANCELLOR could see no objection, as
'natters stood, to the delay proposed.
The matter was accordingly ordered to lie over.
AUGUST 18.—EX-PARTY SANSOM, IN THE MATTER OF

HARRISON.

Petitions had been presented for Mr. Sansom and
. the other Assignees, under a commission of bankrupt,
taken out against Mr. W. Harrison, sen. Mr. Goss,
Mr. Cook, Mr. W. Harrison, jun. and Mr. J. Fair-
weather Harrison, carrying on business under the
firm of W. Harrison and Co. praying that two seve-
ral commissions posterior in date under which the
Petitioners were Assignees, the one being a commis-
sion against the same Company, but only compre-
hending the other four partners, with the exception
of J. F. Harrison ; and the other being a commission
against J. F. Harrison alone, should be superseded ;
on the ground that the whole partners of W. Harri-
son and Co. being already made bankrupt, no subse-
quent commission against them could be valid ; and
that it was for the interest of all concerned, that only
one commission, comprehending all the parties, should
continue to be worked.

Mr. LEACH, Mr. BELL, and Mr. HALL, contended,
that John Fairweather Harrison was not a partner of
the Company, but only their agent in London, and
that if the Commission against the five was void as to
one it must he void as to all.
On the other side, _ _

Sir S. IL TITLLY and Mr. MONTAGU insisted, that J.
Fairweather Harrison was at least a partner as be-
tween the Company and the world ; and had been
in the constant habit of accepting and indorsing their
bills, which were now in Court to the amount of
£lOO,OOO.
The LORD CHANCELLOR thought the question as to
the partnership with J. F. Harrison, so far as the pub-
lic was concerned, a very nice one. He therefore
ordered, as the best thing for all parties, that in order
to try the question of partnership an action should lie
brought by the petitioning Creditor under the com-
mission against the five for a debt, as against the
five, and that in the mean time, all proceedings un-
der the commission against the four, and against the
one, should cease, except as to the proving of debts.