Alexandria gazette & advertiser. [volume] (Alexandria [D.C.]) 1822-1824, 1824-11-30
INTERESTING LAW CASE.

Paov,psNcE, Nov. lS.--A novel and
| very interesting case came before the
| Circuit Court at It's late sitting IN this
town, which called .orth the powers OF
an eminent Counsellor from New York.
Hon. Elisha Williams, and of the Hon,
| Mr.. Hunter.
The case in which these gentlemen
came in contact, was that Of Habeas
Corpus issued at the instance OF the
father of the child about ten years of
aye. directed to the grand father Of the
child. one Of our most worthy and re.
spectacle eli izsns, commanding him to
bring into Cour, the body of the child
| The facts elected from remarks OF
council and from affidaviis in the course
| of the investigation, were, that favo-
rite daughter of the grandfather. on her
death bed, bequeatbed this child to i's
grand parents, the father having been
absen, some time. and his wife at the
! time of her death, and for considera-
I BILE period previous, having been in her
fathers family. Theg and parents had
received the child as sacred deposit.
and had nartored and educated it 10 the
| beat manner, and were abundantIy able
to do every thing for re advancement
! in life. The father wasa clergyman
residing in New York and though by
no means affluent, it old not appear but
that he was a Die to support and educate
the child. The child, il appeared, pre-.
fsrred residing with it's grand psIenfs
! These facts were shown collaterally In
the arguments. but the question as to
which party had the right to the posses.
sion OF the child, did not come Up on
it's merits.
In order to raise this question, the
writ was issued for the production of
the child. In the return on the writ,
the Defendant stated he child was not
in his possession, custody, power or con-
! troll: that she had been placed ut the
Friends Seminary in this town. and
that after the service Of the writ be had
! gone there for her, bot abe was not to
DO found, nor did the Principal know
! W ere she was, or when she went away,
or with whom.
J The counsel fer the father of the
child, MIR. Williams, objected TO this
return az evasive, and prayed the Court
/ for an attachment, or that the Defen.
! dant should be required to answer such
in errogstofies as might be put TO him
| uching this matter.
The opposi'e counsel argued that the
! return was not evasive, but specific and
complete, and that II ought 70 discharge
the Defendant. The Court. after hear.
ing the !orcioIe and eloquent arguments
urged on both sdes, decided that the
Defendant should snswer urther
: InterrogAIorles of the fullest and most
minute kind, were then filed, to which
the Defendant answered. end from
which i, appeared he had no knowledge
whera The child was, nor had ne the
power OF producing her in Court; bu,
that he p sumed come Of his numerous
family connexions, WHO were ve'y soil.
cieous for the child. and unwilling she
should be sen, to her father, bad con-
veyed her away, bu' without his know
eloquent counss for the father still urg.
ed the insufficiency Of the answers, and,
! though he did not deny their truth, be
conteuded that the child must be in the
possession Of some OF the connexions,
and that the court ought not TO have the
authority Of their writ set at nought,
and the laws evaded by 'his attempt to
conceal the eh1Id.
The learned Court expresseds deter.
minaeion 10 use every mesns to havs
the child brought into Court. and urg.
ed upon all persons who might be CON
csrned in secre'ing her, the propriety
of complying with the injunction Of the
writ, and the liabilities they would in.
cur, ii found thus ssading and de!ying
the operations of the laws of the coun-
try-that consideration for the child re
4, quired th,s course that she might not
be rendered miserable, and her health
endangered by being thus secreted, and
! deprived of the benefits OF free and
heslthfuI exercise. What the Court
would do If the child were produced,
was another question. 1t did not fol-
low OF course the child would be delv.
cred to the father, but the Court would |
exercise discretion under all the cir,
cumstsnees, and order the destination |
of the child, "a might be bss, for is in
teres,s, and that should not ALLEVIATE the |
child from the father. But that the
attempt to conceal the child could not |
succeed, and must lead TO unpi asant |