case butler against freeman it be contempt to marry a ware of the court  without leave though the father of the infant be live lib Reg a foe a in  chancery saint April petition by plaintiff father set forth that plaintiff be  entitle to a considerable estate and that a bill have be bring in plaintiff  name by his prochein any for direction concern it and a decree make for that  purpose and that the plaintiff at the age of eighteen year ambler have be  seduce away from Mr Wray a clergyman house in buck be he be place for  education by one Medwin a shopkeeper in Marlow and mary dolben his wife sister  a woman without any fortune and that they all go to Antwerp where it be  pretend the plaintiff and mary dolben be marry after hear counsel on all side  and several affidavit read among which Medwin in one swear that he see they  marry at Antwerp accord to the rite and ceremony of the church of England Lord  Hardwicke chancellor this be the first offence which have come before I since  the late statute as to such marriage I be go to call it robbery there be a  door open in the statute as to marriage beyond sea and in Scotland Q whether  the court have jurisdiction of this matter whether the fact amount to a  contempt of the court objection the plaintiff father be alive and therefore  nobody can have the guardianship of he by reason of the native land potenia  consequent this court have not and if so the court can interfere but this  court do not act on the foot of guardianship or wardship the latter be total  take away by the stat car and without claim the former and disclaim the latter  have a general right delegate by the crown as pater father so interfere in  particular case for the benefit of such who be incapable to protect themselves  and it be no objection that the father of such person be live for infant in  the life of their father sue in this court by prochein any and defend by  guardian this court will protect the estate of the infant against the father  and prevent its come into the father hand see in Pendleton v Mackrory dick see  wright v Naylor mad ambler er p it be admit the court have interfere where  there have be a testamentary guardian I see no difference between the case a  testamentary guardian by statute have all the remedy at law which a father  have ambler but I own there must be a ground to bring the matter proper before  the court and therefore if the father be live and no suit be institute here  the court can in this summary way inflict punishment there must be a suit  depend relative to the infant or his estate to entitle the court to this  jurisdiction in the present case a suit have be institute and decree make  relative to his estate objection No direction have be give as to his person  answer not necessary it be sufficient if a bill be file and be so hold in Hugh  v science part of the prayer of the bill in this case be to have a maintenance  suppose the father have be negligent of his education as the infant have  property of his own the court will have direct part of his income to be apply  for that purpose under the general reservation of further direction whether  this be a good marriage non constat it be say by Medwin he see they marry  accord to the rite and ceremony of the church of England but it will not be  valid here unless it be so by the law of the country where it be have and so  it be say by Murray attorneygeneral to have be determine late at the delegate  his lordship order Medwin and mary dolben to be commit to the fleet the former  to be confine within the wall and to be examine on interrogatory and recommend  it to the master to attend he personal in the fleet for that purpose and he  order the plaintiff to be restore to his father and at the father request  signify by his counsel to be deliver to the care of Mr steel who attend in  court Q whether a suit be necessary if the father be dead to entitle court of  chancery to jurisdiction to punish for contempt in marry a infant or whether  it can be do mere on petition V Mr I Eyre v countess of Shaftesbury wms see ex  part Mountford Ves ex part Thomas ante ex part Birchell atk ex part salt bro S  c dick mrs butler and Medwin have present separate petition to be discharge  they come on this day the latter ambler be find on a special allegation that  the smallpox be in the fleet prison and that he have never have that distemper  to support which the turnkey make a affidavit that the smallpox then be or  late have be in the gaol Medwin himself make no affidavit but his brother  swear he have hear Medwin say he have not have that distemper on the other  side a affidavit be read that the smallpox be not in the gaol but have be so  about three month ago and his examination upon interrogatory be read it appear  that it differ from the affidavit he make on the petition in the latter he  swear that the party be marry accord to the rite of the church of England by  the former he say that the service be read in Dutch which he do not understand  mrs butler petition be in general to be discharge and it be say by the counsel  that Mitchell in the case of Hugh v science ub sup who be commit for promote  such a marriage be release at the end of three week though he be a justice of  the peace and barrister at law and the part he act be attend with very  aggravate circumstance that the present person have be in prison ten week the  discharge of mrs butler be oppose and the only reason assign at the bar be  that Mr butler the father have establish a suit in the ecclesiastical court in  order to have the marriage declare null that the libel be not receive by  doctor lee the judge till very late by reason of his have be ill of the gout  that mrs butler have not as yet appear and put in a answer to the libel and  most likely never will if she be discharge Lord chancellor take it up short  and say these sort of case depend on their own circumstance Mitchell have  other punishment he be strike out of the commission as justice of the peace  and prohibit from practice at the bar that this be the first offence of the  kind since the late Act of parliament and require severe punishment to prevent  a second that as to Medwin there be no colour to discharge he he be endeavour  to impose on the court and as to mary dolben if she continue prisoner ambler  she will be forthcoming to appear to the libel and the court will see what  account she give of the marriage therefore order both petition to stand over  till the next day of petition the petition of Medwin and mrs butler come on  again this day that August ambler er p lib Reg a fol b when it appear by  affidavit that butter the son have elope from his father and a letter from mrs  butler to he which be date a day or two before he leave his father be read by  which she advice he not to mind any thing his father say to he upon their  affair but it do not appear that Medwin be privy to the letter or to butter  the son escape but make a affidavit to the contrary Lord Hardwicke chancellor  nothing give the court so much uneasiness as these sort of complaint it be  necessary to punish for the contempt which can only be by imprisonment and  seldom if ever have the desire effect however the imprisonment must not be  perpetual there must be a end of it let Medwin be discharge on pay the cost of  the contempt but he be not to resort to or keep company with or have any  intercourse or correspondence with the plaintiff the infant till further order  but as mary dolben have not appear to the suit in the ecclesiastical court but  object to the jurisdiction and that have be overrule by the judge there if she  will appear so that the suit may proceed I will discharge her and let the  petition stand over till Thursday for her answer morning N B she afterward  refuse the term and be continue in the fleet until the first afternoon sit in  Michaelmas term and be then discharge see more v more atk Eyre v countess of  Shaftesbury p W Hugh v science S c serj hill ms vol p atk in Edes v Brereton  saint west person concern in the marriage of a ware of court be commit though  they be ignorant of her be a ware see caryi v bertie vern Eyre v countess of  Shaftesbury p W hill v turner atk smith v smith atk de Manneville v de  Manneville Ves lion v blenkin Jacob see Mr hargrave remark on the origin of  the jurisdiction of the court of chancery in such case in his note to   Litt  fol b n see observation upon the power of the court of chancery of deprive a  father of the custody of his child by Mr beam the follow observation on the  jurisdiction of the court in the case of infant occur in the judgement of Lord  Hardwicke in the case of Hugh v science cite in the text the law of the  country have take great care of infant both their person and estate and  particular to prevent marriage to their disparagement for that purpose it have  assign they guardian and if a stranger marry without the guardian consent it  be consider a ravishment of ware and the party be deem punishable by fine and  imprisonment and so it be if the guard himself a marry the infant to another  to its disparagement and the court have original exercise a superintendent  jurisdiction over guardian in behalf of infant to prevent abuse either in  their person or estate as well as in behalf of the crown and inferior lord who  have former a great interest in the wardship of infant afterward indeed the  court of ware be create take the jurisdiction out of chancery for a time but  as soon as that court come to be dissolve the jurisdiction devolve again upon  the court and infant have ever since be consider as under the immediate care  of chancery whenever a suit be commence here on their behalf and even without  suit the court every day appoint guardian on petition and the marriage of a  infant to his guardian or any other without the consent of the court where a  suit be depend here in behalf of the infant have be always treat and punish as  a contempt see serj hill ms vol p see duke of Beaufort v berty p W Creuze v  hunter Cox bro c c n Edward belt Skinner v Warnar dick bro c c ex part Hopkins  p W Wilcox v drake dick de Manneville v de Manneville Ves Whitfleld v hale Ves  Powell v cleaver bro c c   Litt a note by Hargrave Fonbl n a lion v blenkin  Jacob Colston v morris ib S c mad Shelle v Westbroke Jacob fagnani v Selwyn ib  Eq can ab vin Abr title Guard oh p d c pl Osgood ms hill ms see Lord Raymond  case can tempt Talb see Wellesley v duke of Beaufort Russell p ambler er p