The pilot and transcript. [volume] (Baltimore, Md.) 1840-1841, 1840-11-17

Reported TOR the fennsyNahla inquirer anu Coulef'
COURT OF GENERAL SESSIONS.
The Commonwealth in the re-
lation OF Paul Daniel Con Habeas Corpus
salve Grand D'Hauteville, for the body OF
vs. SFrcd'ri Sears
David Sears, Miriam C. Sears, GrandD 'Haute-
and Ellen Sears Grand d. vile.
Hsuteville.
SATURDAY, NOVEMBER IA, l94O.
The unanimous opinion, ofthe Court apas de,
kvered BIZ Judge BGrton, The President Judge
of The Court, as .foItot0s:
In this case, the writ of Habeas Corpus was
issued at the instance of Gonsalve Grand d.
Hauteyiile, directed to Ellen his Wife, and TO
David and Miriam C.. Sears, her parents, com
nanding them to have before the Court, the
body OF Frederick, the infant son of petitioner,
and the said Ellen. oi
h In the petition upon which the writ was is
sued, Mr..D 'Hautevile set forth that he was
a citizen of the Canton de Vaud, in Switzer-
land and that he was married In the Church of
Montreux.in the said Canton, and according TO
its laws, on the ed of August 1887, to Ellen
Sears, whose father was then acltizen of Mas
sachusetts, .In the United States. That in the
early part ofIS3S, his wife, with his consent,
came to Boston, on a temporary visit, and has
since, without~any just cause known to II Pc
titioner, refused TO return to him, or = Seen
prevented from doing so-and that on the 9th
of September following, she gave birth to the
child whose custody he now claims. Mr.. d.
Hauteville adds, that he arrived in The United
States IN July, 1899, and has ever since been
engaged in a fruitless attempt TO recover his
wife and child, the latter of whom has been re-
fsrained of its liberty by its mother and her pa
rents, and detained by them ia this country,
against his consent and permission.
TO the writ of Habeas Corpus, Mr.. and Mrs.
Sears severally returned, that the said child was
not in their custody, which they did not claim,
and never had claimed. That the child and
its mother were, ana for some time had been,
living with them, or one of them, for comfort
and protection, which she (their daughter,) en-
tirely merited, and would continue to receive,
while it should be ia their power to give it.
Mrs D'dauteville makes return, that she
is possessed of the custody of her child; that
as its mother, she claims and is entitled TO
such custody, for the proper and necessary
purposes of its care and guardianship. and i
no other purpose; and thai he is in no respect
restrained of his liberty, or detained illegally.
] That his moral and religious education is, and
4 will continue TO be, suitably attended to; that,
lin her own separate right she is possessed of
ample means for its suitable support and edu-
cation; and that its age does not admit Gifts
Eseparation from her without the greatest dam
ger 10 it's health, and even OF its life, which has
been more than OAce severely threatened Dy
httacks Of illness. Mrs. D'Hauteville further
AYERS, that she has leit her husband, and is
compelled to continue in a state of separation
rom him, in consequence of ga variety Of cir
eumstances," some of which are specified in
er return, and others more particularly detail
a In her further return--but all based upon
alleged total failure of the husband to rea-
Re The expectations ofsympathy and affection
khich he had excited previous to obtaining
er consent OF marriage, and course Of con.
nct towards herself and mother which had
Entered her "inexpressibly wretched," and
inally induced the conviction tsthat there was
10 be no mitigation Of her shteIings while she
continued in his society, and under his con-
ktTaint.' Mrs D'Hauteville adds, that sher
parents have, at her request, considered the
auses Of this separation, and given it their en-;
se sanction and approval. IS so.s i...g isln