On this page
-
Text (1)
-
UEGAL NOTES. 385
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
-
-
Transcript
-
Note: This text has been automatically extracted via Optical Character Recognition (OCR) software. The text has not been manually corrected and should not be relied on to be an accurate representation of the item.
Additionally, when viewing full transcripts, extracted text may not be in the same order as the original document.
-^ ¦ In The Present And Future Numbers O...
deaththe mother marry again , especially to a person of different guardianshi religion , from p . that Indeed of , the the infant jurisdiction , this will of the affect Lord her Chancellor right to the in
respect of infants is of a very discretionary and extensive nature . The Court will not interfere , however , unless the infant have property But . — if Wellesley the jurisdiction v . Beaufort of , the 2 Russ Court . 21 have . any property of the )
infant to act upon , it may assume all control over it , and appoint a guardian , even where there is one already existing * in another right , '
or who has been superseded by the Court , or who renounces , or has mal become treats incapable or deserts or disqualified the infantor at is law grossl , or y has immoral become or bankrup irreligious t , or ,
. appointed or is always and resident even thoug abroad h , he or , has is dead been , or alread has y been appointed inefficientl by y a
foreign tribunal , . The guardian must be resident within the jurisdictionand cannot be a married woman living apart from her
, husband . which . Having the - g reader iven this who brief wishes outline to of obtain the general a fuller law knowled of guardianshi ge thereof p ,
will find stated in a very clear and simple manner in Mr . Chambers * _" Law of Infancy" we will now state the facts of the present
interesting case . , In 1859 the Court of Chancery appointed General Stuart and LadElizabeth Moore to act as guardians of the infant
Marquis of Bute y , who was entitled in fee to vast possessions both in England and Scotland . In the same year Colonel , Stuart was
appointed by the Scotch Court of Session tutor-at-law of the infant . LadElizabeth Moorehaving carried the infant to Scotland
clandestinel y y , in order to , evade an order of the Court of Chancery , it removed her in 1860 from the guardianshipand ordered her to
deliver up the infant to the sole custody of General , Stuart . Lady Elizabeth Moore persisted in retaining the possession of the _childj
notwithstanding the order of the Court . A petition was thereupon _, presented to the Court of Session , ( which exercises over infants in
Scotland a jurisdiction analogous to that enjoyed by the English Lord Chancellor over infants in England , ) praying the enforcement
of the order of the English Court of Chancery . Pending this petitionColonel Stuartthe tutor-afc-law in Scotland , obtained
irom the , Court of Session , an order restraining Lady Elizabeth Moore from taking the infant out of tlie jurisdiction , and directing *
her to give him to a third party . On the 7 th February , 1861 , the Court of Session pronounced an interlocutor upon the petition
of Colonel Stuart , in which the Court forbade General Stuart and all others from removing the infant from Scotland . On an
appeal brought from these interlocutors of the Court of Session _, the House of Lords reversed the interlocutors , and confirmed the
decree of the Court of Chancery , appointing General Stuart sole guardian , and gave directions for carrying out the scheme for the >
-education of the infant approved of by tlie latter Court . ' .
Uegal Notes. 385
UEGAL NOTES . 385
-
-
Citation
-
English Woman’s Journal (1858-1864), Feb. 1, 1862, page 385, in the Nineteenth-Century Serials Edition (2008; 2018) ncse.ac.uk/periodicals/ewj/issues/ewj_01021862/page/25/
-