The Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1822-1829, 1824-12-07
INTERESTING LAW c,cp

=
PRoyIDEScE, Nov. ia no,pl 81,
very Interesting case came brforc II
Circuit Court at itslAte sitting in tb,,tor
which called forth the powers Of mn .,
met Counsellor from New York uo
Elisha Williams, and Of the Hon. \
Hunter
The case in which the gentlemen r,t
IN contact was that of lIabeas Corpu,
sued at the instance of the father of c,I
about ten years of age, directed to a
grandfather ofthe child, one of our md
respectable and worthy citizens, conmmI
ng him tn bring into Canrt thu ~,
the child. The facts elected from reIrrl
of counsel and from affida,i its In the ,uu|
of the Investigation were, that a Eym
daughter Of the grandfather, on her dt4
bed, bequeai.rd this child 10 its sa|
parents, the father having been abe
some time, amt his wife at the time Of 4
death, and for a considerable period N
yious, having been in her fathers hm 4
The grand parents had received tho iii
"a sacred deposit, and had nurtued a
educated il IN the hrst manner. and VA
abundautly able to do every thing for
advancement in life. The fatbrr u9,|
clergy man residing in New York, A
though by no means ailluent, it did 4
appear but that he was able Ia supppn [
educate the child. The child. il apper5
prefer d residing with its grand pare,
These facts we're shown cullaterah IN i
con - Of the arguments, but The qura
as 10 which party had the right 10 the pI
session of the child, did not come up Oh
merits.
In order TO raise this question, the VI
was issued for the production TIE chi
In the return on the writ, the De.pnda
stated that the child was not in his pos,
sion, custody, power or control that 4
had been placed 1T the Friends Scoina
IN this town, and that after the senice
the writ was not Ia be found, nor did
Principal know nhrre she nas, OF
SHE went away, OF with whom.
The council for the father of the cbi
Mr.. Williams, objected 10 this rttmn
e'asi,e, and prayed The count for an 4
ttfhmrnt, or the Defendant should be
illiltd 10 answer such iuterrogalOrics
Nigh! be put To him touching tins matte
Tile opposite counsel argued that
return was moi esasi,t, but specific Al
complete, and that ii ought to dhthdr;
the Defendant. The Court, after hrsrit
the forclhle and eloquent argument. ms
on bt III sides, decided thai the Dc,cba'
should answer further.
lhterrogaturlss of the fullest and ma
minute Kind, We're then filed, 10 which
Defendant answcrrd, and fom which
appeared he had no knowledge ahrrc
end Was, nor had he the power u
duclng her IN Court ; bat that he pr''aa
some otlhls numerous fan ilA tointAY
"ho were very sollclous fol The cma
unwilling she should be seht tn her TAIN
had conveyed her away, but nnbo"
knowledge or eonniyance in any iaH0
The eloquent counsel for the laifd
urged the ins,iifioienry of the an5HrT''
though he did moi deny III. IL truth 0t'
tended that the child must be III thr
session of some Of the connexions
that the Court ought not to have liica'
rlty OF their wit set at uuught, anu
laws cvadrd by this attempt 10 eope'''
child.
The learned Count expressed Or
to use every means 10 have
rhiid brought into Court, add urged
all persons who might be concernci
rret'ns her, the psUprirty Of conf
with the ininnctions oftbe writ, and '
liaes ihry would inc,H, If fund thus
ing and defyins the operation Of the
III the co"ntry-that ronsideroi0h loF
child required the course thai siI" IT.
not be rendered miserable, and her Ur'
endangered by being thus seeretcd, ana
priyed of the benefits Of free and he1ln
exercise. What the court wopld DO