Star.
London, England, 1827-08-07 00:00:00

the plaintiff had endeavoured to alienate the a,.
of the child from him; and that with respect to At..
Penny, although it might look like premeditated hardi-
hood to say so, after the sentence that had been ob-
tained against him, yet no such adulterous intercour
as that which had been charged against hint in the
sistorial Coon had ever existed.
The Vice cw.txtozziort..l don't know wheats. It
did or did not. He,knows best whether it did, *) 4
Mr. SHADWILL said, the only Court which could take
cognizance of such mitten had declared that it had ex-
isted. The defendant went on to state, that he had not
seen Anne Penny for 12 months. Then there was the
affidavit of a person named Samuel Cobham, who de-
-1 posed, that he knew the plaintiff Sarah Bail, and the
defendant George Ball; that he was aware of the dis.
pates between them ; that she was of an extremely vio-
lent temper ; and then he went on rather prophetically
to declare, that she would exert every means to alienate
the affections of the child from her father if she were
under her care ; that he had witnessed the condoct of
the defendant to his daughter, which was very proper
and affectionate ; that the daughter was extremely foud
,of her father, who, deponent was convinced, would do
every thing in his power to make her happy.
The Vtna-Cuariczu.oa said, the first question was
whether the conduct was such as would authorize a
Court of Equity to take away the child ? and the second
question was, if the conduct of the father bad not
of this desstription, whether the Court •

. had power to de-
termine that the mother should have access to her child?

Mr. SMADWILL thought the adultery—
The VICIeCHANCJILLOR had nothing to do with that,
or with the continuance of it, unless it were shewn that
Idle father brought his daughter into contact with the
improper society. with which he associated.
Mr. SNADWIXL was sure that the Court bad Ire.
quently interferid between paternal authority and the
child, upon the ground that such interference would be
more for the benefit of the child, than to suffer her to
remain in the custody of the parent.
The VICs-Cttaacet.tort shOilld like tb bare some
authority hi support of that doctrine.
Mr. Su anwst.t. merely meant to say, that in ageneral
point of view, the object which the Court considered was
not so much the rights of paternal authority arthe ulti-
mate benefit of the

The Vice•Csaatrum.t.oa said it was settled law that
the father was the legal guardian of the child; and unless
there were facts adduced to prove that the father had
,brought the child into contact with improper society,
the Court could not interfere.
Mr. SMADWZI.I. said, that one of the grounds of the
present application was the.proof of the defendant's im-
morality, which the fact of his adultery with his niece
carried on the face of it.. His Honour would consider
that the child had at first been placed entirely under
her mother's care, and that now the was not allowed
to see her, except in the presence of the defendant, who
took every opportunity of behaving with the greatest
rudeness to the plaintiff. It was obvious that it must
be advantageous to any young Lady of fourteen years
of age, that she should enjoy the society of her mother.
It had not been sought to cast the slightest imputation
upon the plaintiff's character, and there could, there-
fore, be no proper reason why all intercourse between
the mother and the child should be forbidden. The
Learned Counsel said, that he should merely press for
'order that the mother should be allowed access to
her child, and he asked this upon the ground that it
would •be for the child's benefit. •
BICEItaIaiSH (on the same side) did not think
there was evidence to warrant the Court to take
,away
the child from the'father; but he thought there were
ample grounds on which an application for leave for
the mother to see her child might be granted. It was
true that she had been placed at a school to which no
objection could be taken; but then she was frequently
brought home, where she bad po female society but that
of a servant of all-work, while she bad a mother who
was able and willing to take care of her. He was sure
that this was conduct which his tionoof could never
approve of.
The VICWCHANCiLLON—There ate a great many
things Ido not approve of which I can't help: •
Mr. BICIURSTETH continued—Mr. Ball had, in one
of his letters, said that he had been accused of wishing
to separate the child from her mother, and he then used
this exprestion...." It would stamp me as a villain if 1
were to seek to bring about such a separation." Not-
withstanding this, he had actually, within one month
feem the date of that letter, taken the child away from
ber mother; plated her at dietante, and in a quarter
which the plitiatiff'could not discover without the most
persevering and anaious irquiries; and had refused,
ewes when she had diteovered where her chili was,
to allow her to tea 4er daughter, except in his orescace.
adz flialit tOr tow 'was, thus the
.pluinuff woitd
"le tows. 5),•