APPENDIX TO CHRONICLE. 



279 



advocate, whether they were rich 

 or poor, and however high and 

 exalted their opponents might be- 

 Ecclesiastical Courts were not by 

 the law of the country Courts of 

 Record, and the person who pre- 

 sided in tliera was amenable in the 

 Courts of Common Law for any 

 act not within their jurisdiction. 

 Neither he nor his client attributed 

 the smallest degree of malice to 

 the right hon. gentleman who was 

 defendant on the record ; but 

 his client had suffered most se- 

 verely from the act of the de- 

 fendant. The plaintiff, as they 

 had already heard from the plead- 

 ings, had been excommunicated, 

 because he refused to become 

 guardian ad litem to his son ; but 

 the guardian was liable to costs, 

 and he contended that the father 

 had a right to refuse ; and of this 

 opinion the lord chancellor ap- 

 peared to be, in the case of this 

 very plaintiff, which is reported in 

 16 Ve?ey's Term Reports, page 

 446, where he says he did not see 

 how a father could be compelled to 

 be a guardian ad litem of his child. 

 The plaintiff was excommunicated 

 in the cliurch of Bishopsgate pa- 

 rish, and it was 10 months before 

 he was absolved. He would prove 

 that before the excommunication, 

 his client was an attorney in great 

 practice, affluent in his circum- 

 stances, and respected by his 

 friends ; but that in consequence 

 of the excommunication he lost his 

 business, his creditors pressed upon 

 him, and by one he was impri- 

 soned. It was true that he had 

 appealed to theCourt of the Arches, 

 when the proceedings of the de- 

 fendant were affirmed ; but high 

 as was his respect for the learned 

 personage who presided in that 

 Court, he must contend that his 



decision was erroneous. The right 

 hon. defendant had himself felt 

 that he had done wrong, for he 

 sent 150/. to the defendant in pri- 

 son ; and although no malice 

 could be imputed to the defendant, 

 still his client ought to be recom- 

 pensed for the injuries he had sus- 

 tained through the erroneous con- 

 duct of the defendant. 



Sir Samuel Romilly was then 

 examined, who stated, that he had 

 applied for a writ ofassoileroa 

 account of the plaintiff: lie did not 

 know what the lord chancellor 

 had ultimately done upon it : he 

 did not know what the expence 

 was. In Chancery, the senior six 

 clerk, not in the cause, was ap- 

 pointed guardian ad litem ; the 

 guardian was never liable for costs; 

 but a minor must file his bill by an 

 ex-friend, who makes himself lia- 

 ble for the costs. 



Mr. Wingfield was examined to 

 the same purport. 



Mr. Shepherd, deputy-registrar 

 of the Consistorlal Court, deposed, 

 that a citation had been made to 

 J. T. Beaurain the younger, in a 

 cause of divorce beiween him and 

 his wife ; that he being a minor, it 

 was absolutely necessary to ap- 

 point a guardian ad litem. That 

 Beaurain, jun. and the plaintiff 

 in this cause, put in a joint- 

 affidavit by Morley, a proctor : the 

 former stating that he had reques- 

 ted his father to be his guardian ; 

 and the latter stating, that he had 

 refused on account of his being 

 liable to costs. When this affidavit 

 was read, the proctor, on the part 

 of the wife, renounced all claim 

 to alimony or costs. Upon that, 

 the defendant appointed plaintiff 

 guardian, being elected by the son, 

 and assigned him to appear on the 

 next court day. No notice was 



