Court Of Session, Edinbur...
The Times, 1824-07-27T00:00:00

I A case of considerable interest was discussed in the first division of the (1ourt on the 9th inst. B. was the mether of a natural child, and it wa.< said she acted in the capacity of a common housegservant to the father. It was not denied, however, that she had been intrust. ed with the keys of the father's repositolies at the time of his death. The father haa settled on the child, now five years of ago, a fortune of upwards of SO,001O., appointing trustees, and tutors, and curators I of whom tne mother was not one. 'T'he mother wished to retain the custody of her own child, while an inffant; but offering at the same time to gve all other facilities for its proper maintenance and edu. cation, and expressitg a wish that a respectable and qualified governess should immediately be employed. The trustees con- sidered the mother.-from the rank in which shc had moved_ from the stain which frailty had fixed upon her-and from her want of edueation-to be utterly unlitted for having the cus- tody of achild havingsuch prosects ; but they were willing that as'e should reside near, and have all reasonable mieans of access to her Idaughter. Differing in this manner, the mother brought an action for about 6001. a year of alimentary allowance for her child. 'l'his action was opposed by the trustees, who, by the Dean or Faculty (M1r. Cranstoun) and 51r. iolicitor(;Gcneral, contended, the c4ste-dy of this child ought not to be in the niother that there was no re- mnission for wossets wvho had once been frail; that no well-educated zespectable lady, qualified to instruct the child eording to her pros ects, would live in the same house with the mother ; that the goo of the child required separ.tion frotn the mother ; that the Court had power, and ought to exercise the power, of assigping the custody to the tutors. Mie5srs. Moncriew and AMarshall con- tenided, that by law the custody of the child was entirely vested in the mother, at least for seven years; that this had been decided, and recently, by the other division of the Court ; that the custody ,f a natural child belonged to the motlter, even whten the father was alive; that the father could not confer higher rights bn trustees or tutors (whom, by the way, lie could not nanme for a na. turul child, except a: to the iartune he might leave in its favour) thant had belonged to limself; and that bte Cowtt could not inter- fere, unless a case of improper treatment were madc oUt. The Lord Ptesident said, it was impossible to satisfv hibu thpt this child could be properly educatetl in the family with her mother. The idea was wild and ridiculaus in. tle extreme. There were boarding schools even, in which natural children would not i)e received; and no lady qualified for instructing this child would associate with her mother. Fiis L.ordahip had no doubt whatever. Their Lordships were the ultimnate guarldians of all thLe pupils in Scotlaund. 'They hat a right to interfere: when circumstances required ; and thc interests at te puptb, aLntit he interes's *f the pupils only, was what influenced aind guided thleir LoRdships in such cass. As to ch ase foswndct on, he woutld, had he sat in the other dividjon, have been of a very d'iff,srenlt opiniLJn Tne toothier its that case had matried a-low spfrit-dea2er, one of tde moot d reputatle cc. cupations in the country. Hie woild hate bcee' for removifng the, child. There was also tomething ini the ihale of that question- but-it as orne decsion only, and: bjL JJ,dal-.h, d Ino Zeprd it here. In this case the charater of the tnother is lost arre. trevably._her conduct wits miwprgiouj A . Othothly In the hialhest degiee; nnd he ld..4ve hero4e .xpence beyond what wasa Ipulsor and- inajxpopble. or4 a erwvsd tsf ofa sfinilar; jpjli,j. The child wvas, entitlet to ve_ gverne5s of jh cy is,claracter and ,accomIlishniestsi Su}t, grson ould not live withw tlse mother, Th. wTelare . nd vrreer,t of the child required that, the should be phiced 115 n$bs2 usrctody. Lard Blalgray regretted that the question liaX been egtat:Eed in this form. Ite would have beenl more prudent, hnd better for t2re child, if the mother had takenl a diffierent corsyte; but their Ldahips were bound to dlecide nccording to leal prnnciple8. The law O,f Scotlanh gave the custody of nstur;l chUdren to the mother; and theit Lord- ships,, ilon tirne immemori31, had riven eftct tO it. Thcfdnciple was Y170 deeply foundel in the wa of mature, which ougbt not rashly to be torn asunder. And if the law gave the cttodyto the mother, were their Lordshipa, for that reason, to disregard the in- terests of the child? It was heir bwsnden duty, notwIthwtandng, to see that 'he child was sufficiently priMdded for und attende'c to, in the circumstances in which she waa-placed. Lord Succath coisureed generally with Lord Balgray. And their Lordship; underatanding that in the meantime the trustees would exerclse a Wound dicreton in alffording dlimnent, ordered memorials. X COURT 0O' SESSION, EDIrBURGH. AT.1-TV )V I t - . , ,e -