JONES v. STOCKETT. 431

duct of the parent, every affectionate and tender feeling which
should subsist between them will be sustained and cherished as far
as practicable; and, for that purpose, they will be allowed to visit
each other as often as may be compatible with the safety and good
morals of the infant, (x)

Apart, however, from any positively vicious conduct of a father
which might, of itself, afford a sufficient ground for having him
separated from his children, a parent cannot be allowed, capriciously,
to disappoint the just hopes and expectations of his child. For,
although it is, by law, the duty of a parent to maintain his child,
yet, where the father was in very indigent circumstances, and the
child had had given to him a large fortune, such parent was not
allowed to prevent the child from being maintained and educated
in such manner as his fortune could well afford, and with the ad-
vantages he was thus justly entitled to expect; (y) or where the
father takes a benefit under the will, by having a legacy given to
himself, and also in consideration of a large legacy given to his
child, consents that her maintenance and education shall be given
up to the management of trustees, (z)

But, although it may be admitted that this jurisdiction of the
Court of Chancery, as between parent and child, has been substan-
tially established, yet it cannot be denied that there are many cases
in which it would be exceedingly difficult to exercise such authority
successfully, and with real advantage to the infant, (a)

In the case under consideration there is no evidence whatever of
any vicious habits, or improper treatment of the father towards the
legatee, or any other of his children; nor does there appear to have
been any such great pecuniary difference made by this legacy be-
tween this legatee and his father, as in any respect to call for a
check upon the parental authority for the benefit of the infant.
The father, we must presume, from the proofs, is an industrious
labouring citizen, with a large family about him; who has not the
means of bestowing any thing more than what is called a common
country school education upon any of them. His son Larkin, the

(x) The King v. Soper, 5 T. R. 278; The King v. Hopkins, 7 East. 579;
Strangeways t;. Robinson, 4 Taunt. 509; Ex parte Hopkins, 3 P. Will. 155; Lyons
v. Blenkin, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 124; Prather v. Prather, 4 Desau. 39; 2 Lond. Jurist,
76.—(y) Beaufort v. Berty, 1 P. Will. 705; Ex parte Hopkins, 3 P. Will. 154;
Powel v. Clever, 2 Bro. C. C. 510; Butler v. Butler, 3 Atk. 60; Creuze v. Hunter,
2 Cox, 242; Lyons v. Blenkin, 4 Cond. Cha. Rep. 124.—(z) Lyons v. Blenkin, 4
Cond. Cha. Rep. 124.—(a) 2 Lond. Jurist, 66.