Page:The Green Bag (1889–1914), Volume 14.pdf/649

 6o0

the discretion of the court, — it must be held that the Chancellor is bound to inter pose. As the deed passed no right to her father, it still remained in the mother of the children, and whatever the mother may have done, if she neglects, the children may com plain, or any one for them. The Chancellor continued : "It has been said on the point of religion, that he holds the true state of the question to be whether this court shall not take the infants out of the hands of a person who has no right of guardianship, and put them into the hands of a person who has the right, and is of the religion of this country. I do not by any means intend to declare to the con trary, to take the children of Jews from their parents, any farther than is required by the act of parliament. It has been said that the father of the children was a Jew. I see nothing to prevent the father from devising; but the father being dead, and not having

disposed of the guardianship, the father's right devolves to the mother, and she is here of the religion of the country, and therefore no reason to take the right from her. As to the statute, i Anne (1701), though the present case is not within the provisions of it, yet the reason weighs; for, if a Jew child becomes Christian the act of parliament takes away the father's power, and as the children here are of such tender years that they cannot choose for themselves, should not the court interpose to assist in restoring them to their rightful guardian? No person has greater regard to conscience, but holds likewise that the Christian religion is part of the law of the land, and so held and declared by Lord Chief Justice Hale, in the case of King v. Taylor, 1 Vent. 193; 3 Keb. 107." The Lord Chancellor therefore ordered the children to be delivered forthwith to the mother.

THE FINAL TRIAL OF THE SIFTON MURDER CASE. READERS of The Green Bag will recol lect that in the issue of November last year there was given a short account of the trial, at London, Ontario, Canada, of Gerald Sifton on a charge of murdering his father, which trial then proved abortive, through the disagreement of the jury, it being cur rently reported that nine were for convic tion, three for acquittal. The case was tried again during the first week of last month, November, with the result that the jury brought in a verdict of " Not guilty." The case being now concluded one is more at liberty than last year to comment upon the remarkable incidents which it pre sents. The facts proved were as follows : Joseph

Sifton, an elderly widower, living by himself, had an only son Gerald, the accused, who was married and lived elsewhere, though near to his father : Mary MacFarlane, a young girl, lived in Gerald's house, and helped Gerald's wife in the house and on the farm. Mary had been seduced by Joseph Sifton, and be lieved herself to be pregnant by him; a marriage had been hastily arranged between them to take place on Saturday the 30th of June, 1900, the day of which the old man met his death. This arrangement came to Gerald's knowledge on the evening of Friday the 29th, when the old man drove over to Gerald's house, and took away Mary to her mother's house, where they stayed for several hours. After leaving there they drove back