Links: Home | swarblaw - law discussions

swarb.co.uk - law index


These cases are from the lawindexpro database. They are now being transferred to the swarb.co.uk website in a better form. As a case is published there, an entry here will link to it. The swarb.co.uk site includes many later cases.  














Children - From: 1849 To: 1899

This page lists 22 cases, and was prepared on 20 May 2019.

 
Regina v Vann [1851] 2 Den 325
1851

Lord Campbell CJ
Children
A parent of a child who had not the means of providing for the burial of the body of his deceased child was not liable to be indicted for the misdemeanour of not providing for its burial, even though a nuisance was occasioned by the body remaining unburied. "It is true that a man is bound to give Christian burial to his deceased child if he has the means of doing so; but he is not liable to be indicted for a nuisance, if he has not the means of providing burial for it. He cannot sell the body, put it into a hole, or throw it into the river; but unless he has the means of giving the body Christian burial he is not liable to be indicted, even though a nuisance may be occasioned by leaving the body unburied, for which the parish officer would probably be liable."
1 Citers



 
 Crowhurst And Mary His Wife v Laverack; 20-Nov-1852 - [1852] EngR 1029; (1852) 8 Exch 208; (1852) 155 ER 1322
 
Hope v Hope [1854] EngR 805; (1854) 4 De GM and G 328; (1854) 43 ER 534
5 Aug 1854

Lord Cranworth LC
Children
A child owed allegiance to the Crown and in return the Crown had a protective or parens patriae jurisdiction over the child wherever he was. Lord Cranworth LC explained this: "The jurisdiction of this Court, which is entrusted to the holder of the Great Seal as the representative of the Crown, with regard to the custody of infants rests upon this ground, that it is the interest of the State and of the Sovereign that children should be properly brought up and educated ; and according to the principle of our law, the Sovereign, as parens patriae, is bound to look to the maintenance and education (as far as it has the means of judging) of all his subjects. The first question then is, whether this principle applies to children born out of the allegiance of the Crown ; and I confess that I do not entertain any doubt upon the point, because the moment that it is established by statute that the children of a natural born father born out of the Queen's allegiance are to all intents and purposes to be treated as British born subjects, of course it is clear that one of the incidents of a British born subject is, that he or she is entitled to the protection of the Crown, as parens patria."
1 Citers

[ Commonlii ]
 
Thomas v Thomas [1855] EngR 42; (1855) 2 K and J 79; (1855) 69 ER 701
1855


Children, Limitation
When a father has entered upon the estate of his infant children the presumption is that he entered as their guardian and bailiff, and therefore the Statute of Limitations does not begin to run against the children until they attain twenty-one, and from that time at least a child has twenty years within which he may recover possession. Semble, entry by a stranger might not have this effect.
If the father retain possession after the children attain twenty-one such possession will be considered to be continued in the character in which he entered, so that an account will be directed, not from the filing of the bill, but, if necessary, from the time of entry.
In an adverse suit, in the nature of an ejectment suit, against a person in no fiduciary relation to the plaintiff, this account is only directed from the time of filing the bill.
If a wife concurs with her husband in mortgaging property over which. she has a power, the husband is primarily liable, unless the wife received the money for her separate use; and the Court will direct an inquiry as to this fact.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Clayton v Clarke [1860] EngR 1296; (1860) 2 Giff 575; (1860) 66 ER 241
19 Dec 1860


Children, Trusts
Bill by a next friend of an infant to administer an estate, in respect of which, it appeared from the answer, the Defendants had already rendered an account in another suite. The Defendants submitting that the suit was not instituted for the benefit of the infant-the Court directed an inquiry whether any benefit had accrued from the suit to the infant; and the Chief Clerk having certified in the negative, the Court refused to allow the next friend his costs.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Chubb v Griffiths [1865] EngR 781; (1865) 35 Beav 127; (1865) B)
15 Dec 1865


Children

[ Commonlii ]
 
Helen Skinner, Sophia Evelina Orde, William Orde, Charles Grant Barlow, And Sophia Skinner [1871] EngR 55; (1871) 8 Moo PC NS 259; (1871) 17 ER 310
11 Dec 1871
PC

Children, Commonwealth
A Child born in India, whose Father was a European British subject and a Christian, must be presumed to have the Father's religion, and his corresponding civil and social status, and it is the duty of a Guardian to bring up his Ward in his Father's religion. An Infant, the Child of a Christian Father and the issue of a Christian marriage was left, by the death of her Father, of very tender age, and brought up by her Mother as a Christian during her early youth, Her mother after cohabiting with a man having a Wife and professing the Christian religion, became, with him, a Mahomedan, for the purpose, as it appeared, of giving legal effect to a Mahomedan marriage between tbem, but which alleged marriage was not proved to have been duly celebrated. The infant, after attaining the age of fourteeen years, and being with her Mother, professed a desire to become a Mahomedan in religion, and adopted the Mahomedan mode of life. The Courts in India having been applied to, under the circumstances, by her relatives, to remove the Infant from the custody of her Mother, made an Order under the provisions of the Acts, Nos. XL. of 1858 and IX. of 1861, and placed the Infant under a Christian Guardian. Such Order, on appeal, confirmed by tlie Judicial Committee.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Helen Skinne v Sophia Evelina Orde, William Orde, Charles Grant Barlow, And Sophia Skinner [1871] EngR 56; (1871) 14 Moo Ind App 309; (1871) 20 ER 802
12 Dec 1871
PC

Children, Commonwealth
A child born in India, whose father was a European British subject and a Christian, must be presumed to have the father's religion, and his corresponding civil and social status, and it is the duty of a Guardian to bring up his ward in his father's religion. An infant, the Child of a Christian Father and the issue of a Christian marriage was left, by the death of her Father, of very tender age, and brought up by her Mother as a Christian during her early youth, Her mother after cohabiting with a man having a Wife and professing the Christian religion, became, with him, a Mahomedan, for the purpose, as it appeared, of giving legal effect to a Mahomedan marriage between tbem, but which alleged marriage was not proved to have been duly celebrated. The infant, after attaining the age of fourteeen years, and being with her Mother, professed a desire to become a Mahomedan in religion, and adopted the Mahomedan mode of life. The Courts in India having been applied to, under the circumstances, by her relatives, to remove the Infant from the custody of her Mother, made an Order under the provisions of the Acts, Nos. XL. of 1858 and IX. of 1861, and placed the Infant under a Christian Guardian. Such Order, on appeal, confirmed by tlie Judicial Committee.
[ Commonlii ]

 
 Baboo Lekraj Roy, Baboo Mahtab Chand And Others; PC 14-Dec-1871 - [1871] EngR 58; (1871) 14 Moo Ind App 393; (1871) 20 ER 833
 
The General Manager of The Raj Durbungah v Maharaja Coomar Ramaput Singh [1872] UKPC 29
21 Mar 1872
PC

Children
(Court of Wards)
[ Bailii ]
 
Thomas Philippe La Cloche v Thomas La Cloche,-Respondent And, By Revivor, Thomas Philippe La Cloche,-Appellant; The Viscount Of Jersey [1872] EngR 28; (1872) 9 Moo PC NS 87; (1872) 17 ER 446
27 Jun 1872
PC

Children
The written customary Laws of Normandy since the time of the separation of the Island of Jersey from that Duchy are authorities received in Jersey as expositions of the Law and customs of the Island. According to the Law of Jersey, an illegitimate child is legitimated per subsequens matrimonium.
[ Commonlii ]
 
Agar-Ellis, In re (1878) 10 ChD 49
1878
ChD

Children

1 Citers


 
In Re Besant (1878) 11 ChD 508
18 May 1878
ChD
Sir George Jessel MR
Children
Mrs Besant had been prosecuted for publishing an obscene libel in the form of a book on abortion. Held: The publication of the book was in itself sufficient grounds for removing Mrs Besant’s seven year old daughter from her mother’s custody. Held: “I am sorry to say that there is another ground, which I should be glad to avoid dealing with if I could. Another accusation against Mrs Besant is this: It is said that in addition to these opinions on the questions as to the existence of a Deity and other speculative subjects, Mrs Besant has been guilty of immoral conduct in publishing an immoral or obscene book, or rather pamphlet. Now, I am sorry to say that on my attention being directed to some of the pages of this pamphlet I can entertain no doubt whatever as to its being an obscene publication.
My view is exactly the same as was entertained by the Lord chief Justice of England and a jury on the occasion of the trial of Mr Bradlaugh and Mrs Besant for the publication of this book, at which trial they were convicted. And although that conviction has been set aside on a technical point, a flaw in the indictment, no Judge, so far as I am aware, has for a moment doubted the propriety of that conviction. Besides that, it has also been condemned by a magistrate to be destroyed, and that decision has been confirmed by a Court of Quarter Sessions, a number of magistrates being assembled there. I think my view of the book is, if I may say so, fully confirmed and borne out by these previous decisions; although, even if I entertained a less strong opinion than I do, I ought not to hesitate to express that opinion.
Well, now, what is the result? The result of it is that Mrs Besant’s character is to be judged not only by the publication of the book, but by the conviction following from that publication, and one cannot expect modest women to associate with her. She may be a most conscientious person – that is to say, she may believe that all she has done was done by her for the purpose of doing good. I am not unwilling to admit that, and to credit her with good intentions, but if she has adopted a course which is reprobated by a vast majority of mankind, and in fact by the criminal law of this country, I do not think I should be right in saying that it would be beneficial for any young girl to be brought up by such a woman, and I think I should be guilty of a dereliction of duty if I allowed a young girl to be so brought up and educated in that way.”
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
In Re Besant (1879) 11 Ch D 508
9 Apr 1879
CA
James Baggallay and Bramwell LJJ
Children
The appellant challenged an order removing her children after she had been prosecuted for publishing an obscene libel, in the form of a book on abortion. Held: The appeal was dismissed. The court removed the daughter of Annie Besant and the Rev Frank Besant from the custody of the former, notwithstanding that the parties had agreed that she should have custody.
James LJ: "We have it before us that the Appellant was found guilty by a jury of publishing a work stigmatized by them as being calculated to deprave public morals, and that she, in spite of that finding, determined to persist, and did persist, in publishing that work. That the jury were right in their finding the Judges of the Court of Queen's Bench had no doubt, and we are constrained to say that we entirely concur. The other works charged are substantially of the same character. It is impossible for us not to feel that the conduct of the Appellant in writing and publishing such works is so repugnant, so abhorrent to the feelings of the great majority of decent Englishmen and Englishwomen, and would be regarded by them with such disgust, not as matters of opinion, but as violations of morality, decency, and womanly propriety, that the future of a girl brought up in association with such a propaganda would be incalculably prejudiced. The Appellant contends that these are unfounded and unwarranted antipathies and prejudices, like those with which rival sects were wont to regard one another. But the Court cannot allow its ward to run the risk of being brought up, or growing up, in opposition to the views of mankind generally as to what is moral, what is decent, what is womanly or proper, merely because her mother differs from those views and hopes that by the efforts of herself and her fellow-propagandists the world will be some day converted. If the ward were allowed to remain with the mother, it is possible, and, perhaps, not improbable, that she would grow up to be the writer and publisher of such works as those before us. From such a possible future the Master of the Rolls thought it his duty to protect her, and we have no hesitation in saying that we entirely concur with him."
An agreement by a father to part with custody was void, being contrary to public policy.
1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Re Birchall; Wilson v Birchall (1880) 16 Ch D 41
1880
CA
Jessel MR, James and Cotton LJJ
Litigation Practice, Children
In the administration of his estate the widow of the deceased took out a summons asking for a declaration that a large amount of personal property was held by the deceased as trustee for her and so did not fall into his estate. A compromise was suggested dividing the chattels between the widow and the estate. Counsel for infant beneficiaries refused to assent, the guardian being opposed to the compromise. Held: A court cannot force a litigation friend to enter into a compromise against his wishes.
Jessel MR said: "This is not approving of a compromise, but compelling one. What jurisdiction has the court to do so? . . In my opinion the course which has been taken in this case is quite unprecedented. The court can approve of a compromise on behalf of infants, but it cannot force one upon them against the opinion of their advisers. The practice . . has been to require not only that the compromise should be assented to by the next friend or guardian of the infant, but that his solicitor should make an affidavit that he believes the compromise to be beneficial to the infant, and that his counsel should give an opinion that he considers it to be so . . This is the first time that I have known a compromise enforced upon infants, against the opinion of their guardians or next friend and of their legal advisers, and I am of the opinion that the orders cannot stand."
1 Citers


 
In re Agar-Ellis (1883) 24 ChD 317 CA
1883
CA

Children

1 Cites

1 Citers


 
Studd v Cook [1883] UKHL 566; 20 SLR 566
8 May 1883
HL
Lord Chancellor, Lords Watson and Fitzgerald
Children
Process - Appeal - Expenses - Parent and Child - Obligation of Parent who had Raised Action against his Pupil Children to Provide Funds to Enable their Curator ad litem to Defend Judgment of Court of Session.
[ Bailii ]
 
Clarke v Carfin Coal Co [1891] UKHL 950 - 1; 28 SLR 950 - 1
27 Jul 1891
HL
Earl of Selborne, and Lords Watson, Macnaghten, and Morris
Personal Injury, Children
Reparation - Parent and Child - Action for Damages for Death of Illegitimate Child - Title to Sue.
A woman sued a company for damages for the loss, by the fault of the defenders, of her illegitimate son, who was fourteen years of age. The respondents, founding on the illegitimacy of the son, pleaded no title to sue.
Held ( aff. the decision of the Second Division) that the pursuer had no title to sue.
[ Bailii ]
 
Edwards v Carter [1893] AC 361
1893
HL

Children, Contract
If an infant choses to repudiate a disposition, he must do so within a reasonable time after coming of age.
1 Citers



 
 In re McGrath (Infants); CA 1893 - [1893] 1 Ch 143
 
Regina v Gyngall [1893] 2 Q.B. 232
1893


Children
"In exercising the jurisdiction to control or to ignore the parental right the court must act cautiously, not as if it were a private person acting with regard to his own child, and acting in opposition to the parent only when judicially satisfied that the welfare of the child requires that the parental right should be suspended or superseded."
1 Citers



 
 Re Ashton; ChD 1897 - [1897] 2 Ch 574
 
Copyright 2014 David Swarbrick, 10 Halifax Road, Brighouse, West Yorkshire HD6 2AG.