পাতা:তত্ত্ববোধিনী পত্রিকা (প্রথম কল্প দ্বিতীয় খণ্ড).pdf/১২০

- 曾 | the Court ought to ordar him to be given up to his father, Mr. Justice Ryan.—This is an application of some importance both from the arguments used and the nature of the return. From the return it appears, that the boy informed {{ristnoonohun Banerjee, that he had been nfined in the house of his father, and that his relatious had endeavoured to prevent him becoming a Christian. . It appears that Banerjee advised the boy to return to his father's house, and that afterwards on being informed that the boy wished to speak with him, he went to the Barrakpore road, where the boy joined him and accompanied him to the house of the Reverend W.M. Dealtry. It appears to ine that there is on the face of this eturn something like a contrivance. I think the child is an infant, and that he has got away from his father's house for the purpose of being i te, a Christian, The next question is what is to be doue with him " The Advocate General says, that we are not to interfere but to allow the child to go where he pleases. I think the advocate general is mistaken : the Court has the power to interfere, but it has the discretion whether it will exercise it or not. In this case, the child has been allured from his parent's house for the purpose of converting him to christianity, contrary to the usages of the country and the statute.cited by Mr. Clark. I theresore say, that to order him to be delivered to his father, is a sound, proper, and good decision. We are bound to protect the usages of the natives of this country, and if the Court do not come to this decision, it would be acting contrary to law" Womeshchunder Sircar, a youth of 14 years of age's on of Gungadhul Sir car, was a pupil in the free Church institution at Nimtollah. Ultimately, he took shelter at Dr.I)uff's the missionary superintendent of the institution, where he was provided for. The father made application for a writ of Habeas Corpus against Dr. Duff, for the production of the body of Womesh Chunder, which was refused on the The ground that the Court cannot interfere. boy was willing to remain with Dr. Duff. The Chief Justice –It does not appear that the child was detained against his will. He might have gone away with his father if he had wished, although the affidavit states, that he was §§ yet the father says, he believes that the staying. any interviews between them. The child is under no illegal restraint, on the contrary he is consenting to remain where he is. In moving for a Habeas Corpus a prima sacie case of restraint should be inade out. The court cannot act merely on the belies of the parties. Here is a species of Inoral restraint with which the court cannot interfere. If any obtruction had been offered in preventing the father from seeing his child, we should have granted the applicatton.† If the court had the power to interfere then, why has it not the same power now 1 if it was thought a contrivance of the missionaries in the one, why was it not thought so in the other case. It was as much a moral re-traint in the one as in the other instance, and Brojonauth was as willing to remain with the Missionaries as Woineshchunder was said to be with Dr Duff. It is worthy of remark that, in both cases, the young converts were under age, and equally unwilling to return to their paternal homes. Should the first part of the proposition be disputed, we are prepared to provide the horoscope of Womes Chunder Sircar which clearly proves his being under age. From that docuinent, he was born on the 23rd of Ugrahn 1237 B. E. corresponding to the 7th of December 1830—and therefore when advised by Dr. Duff or any other to fail in the raspect due to his father against all divine laws, Womesh Chunder absconded in the Revereud's house on the 20th of April last, he was only 14 Ys. 4 Ms. and 13 days. We are, therefore, wholly at a loss to account for so striking a discrepancy in the decisions of the same Supreme Court in two cases, the exact simila rity of which is beyond possibility of all question or controversy. If uniformity of deci be compelled to son consented to .. No obstruction has been offered to the father in visiting his child, and there is nothing to shew Dr. Duff has prevented . ബ= سیسہ ۔ تیے -- sion constitutes one feature of the chief use fulness of a court of justice, we are sorry to record, that the Supreme Court has departed in this instance from the principle which would have governed it. - ---- حصحصے ح~~ ------------- f Vide the Bengal Hurkaru April 25, 1845. -ജ്ജ পত্রপ্রেরকের প্রতি । গত মাস পৰ্য্যন্ত যে সকল প্রশ্ন আমার দিগের নিকটে প্রেরিত হইয়াছে, স্থানাভাব প্রযুক্ত আদ্যকার পত্রিকাতে তাহার উত্তর প্রদান করিতে অসমর্থ হইলাম । বিজ্ঞাপন । যাহার তত্ত্ববোধিনী সভার সভ্য হইবার মানস করেন তাহারা পত্র দ্বারা সম্পাদক মহাশয়কে জানাইবেন । গরে যোড়াসাকোস্থিত ব্রাহ্মসমাজের মন্দিরের ভক্তবোধিনী সভার কার্য্যালয় মাসের হইত্তে প্রথমদিষঙ্গে প্রকাশিত হয় ৷ t