The Statesman.
London, England, 1810-07-11 00:00:00

•

LAW INTELLIGENCE.

COURT Or KING'S BENCH, Jr.s 10.

WILL v. WC/SMITS.
RtADIIIR moved that a warrant of 'attorney,
granted by the Defendant to the Plaintiff, silo,: id
be Fet aside in the following cirtsunstances The
Defendant having two bills, amounting to 431
which hevished to get discounted, applied to the
Plaintiff fur this purpose, who coincided to dis-
count the bills, the Defendant taking 2411, in cash,
and there hainder in jewellery. Of these terms
the Defendant was obliged to accept, hut on intik.
ing into thy value of the articles of jewellery he
had revived, he found they were not worth the
ono-third of Or sum he had beets charged for them.
In these eiretimtances lie (lid what was incumbent
on him as an honest man. Ife tendered back to
Mr. itoli its the ‘2l. and the jewellery, on his re.
storing to him the two bills, and giving up the war.
'rant of attorney, which he had granted him. This,
however, Mr. Roberts refused to agree to. —Rule

to shew Cause granted.
SOCIETY FOR ENCOURAGEMENT OF CHRIS-
TIANITY AMONG THE CHILDREN OF JEWS.
Mr. GURNEY applied on lb. part of a Jew of
the name of Isaacs, for a writ of Habeas. Corpus, '
fur bringing up the body of his son, a youth not '
15 years of age, for the purpose of having him
delivered to his father's custody and keeping. The
father was a slopseller, &c. at Chester, and about
two years ago, being then in prison fur debt, the
boy in question had left the house, in consequence
of a quarrel with some of the other children.—
The father did not hear of his child for some time,
but at length was given to understand that he was
in the service of a Medical Gentleman, on Tower-
biH, where he was well treated. It was not fur a
considerable time afterwards that the father ascer-
tained that his son had left his place, and, after the
most anxious inquiry, he had lately discovered
that he was in a school, or in some way under the
care ant protection of a society fur the encourage-
ment of Christianity among the Children of the
Jews. There could he no doubt that the father
had the undoubted right to the custody and keep-
ing of his own child. lie had applied to the Mas-
ter of the School, and also to several Members of
the Committer, begging that he might he delivered
up to him, but this had been refused. It appeared
even that they had removed the boy into the coun-
try. that Isis father might nut have the opportunity
of seeing him. He had applied for this purpose,
and the answer was, that if he chose to go 4200
miles to see the boy, they would permit him to do
So, and if it should appear that he did not remain
in their care of his own free will, that they would
deliver him up to his tether. Ha presumed to think,
however, that th.• father had a right to this indul.
genee without going WO miles to obtain it. lie
apple t,or the Habeas Corpus to IA! directed to
the Master of the School* and three Members of
the Committee.

Lord ELEANBOROUGH.—." The boy has been
two years from snider the service of his fattier."
Mr. Justice LE BLANC.—" And that too be.'
cause be could not maintain him."
Mr. GURNEY.—" The father was then in pri.
son. He is now in business again, and is anxious
to have hi son with him, who might be useful in
carrying on the business."
Mr. Jostici LL BLANC.-" The boy remains
where he I- of his own free• wish."
Mr. Justice G►tosc.—" And why should we
remove him from so safe a custody, where he is
emain. According to your own ac-
count of the ma►ter, he is now under much better
care than that to which you propose to send him."
Mr. GLIR'NEY said, that on this principle, Jewish
parents were liable to have their children taken
away from then►. •
• Lord ELLENnottouon.--." This is not a• case
in which the child was taken away. You would
be more correct in saying here, the child had been
abandoned by his father. And now, when he has
been able to procure a safe and comfortable asy-
lum, you apply to take him away from it without
his consent. flare you any case, without at all
touching on the plea of religion, where such a
thing ever occurred ?"
Mr. GURNEY said, he made this application
solely on the right of the father to hare his son
delivered up to him. The father swore in his
davit, not that the child had been left without pro.
section, but that lu• had left the house in conse-
quence of a quarrel with another of the clahlren.
Mr. Justice Gitost.-4,4 We issue these Writs
for the benefit of the child, and here we ►►ill beat
'consult his interest by allowing him to remain where
Is, is." •
Mr. GURNEY.—" fi does not appear, tior arc
' we sure, if the boy remains in his present situation
of his own free will."
Lord Et.t.Ewnoitouou.—" On the showing of
your own affidavits it appears that lie does."
M. Gun sEr.—" They lima nut allowed the
father to see him."
. Lord ELLE,:aottouint.—" They have offered
to do so, mid gen to deliver up the boy if it should
appear that he did not continue there of his own
• free will." _ _

Mr. GURNEY.—« Yes, but.to have seen him
the father :oust have guttelOn miles."
Mr. Justice BAILEY.—" The father's guardian.
ship of the boy ceased vi hen he was years of age."
Lord ELLENzottoucu.--" The buy was left un-
protected by his father, two years ago. Ile has
since th it time been ftirtunate enough to find a
place where he receives support, protection, and
education ; and can we, in the exercise •f our
sound judgment for the benefit of this boy, take
him (ruin this protection which lie has fortunately
found, and send him back to a situation where he
may be again exposed, even to the chance of being
nice more reduced to the state front which he has
been rescued ?"
Mr. Justice I.x RiANC—g4 There would hare
been • great difference in the case, if the buy
had beets inveigled away. Ile left his father's
protection at a period When it could no longer
avail him ?7,

Mr. Justice Gnose-46 If the child had wished
to he removed, that would have been a different
question ; we are in the use of granting these
writs fur the benefit of the child only."
Rule refused..