The daily crescent. [volume] ([New Orleans, La.]) 1848-1851, 1848-05-08
VERY INTERESTING LEGAL CASE.

| cnlldren-W llliam, then about III years old, ana
| Mary, now about thirteen years and nine months
| old-the mother of said children having died many
years before. Mcneil made his last will and tes-
lament on the 18th day of March, 1874, by which
he appointed Morgan W. Brown, testamentary exc
| cutor and guardian of his said minor children,
| William and Mary. The will was duly probated
in Tennessee, in April, 1884, whereby the testator
left his children all his property, amounting to
| upwards of one hundred thousand dollars, situ-
ated principally in Tennessee. No part of the pro-
perty was situated in Louisiana. Brown enter
ed upon his duties at once, and introduced the
children into his family, where they lived happily,
until the 14th of April, 1s4s, when said Mary was
taken from the custody of the petitioner, fraudu-
lently and against his will in the city of Nashville,
by John S. Crockett and Lucinda Crockett, citizens
of New Orleans, and hurried to the said city, where
she is, in the possession of John S. Crockett
| and Edward Chapman, of this city, and concealed
in said Chapman's house.
Whereupon they prey for the writ, and that said
| Mary be delivered to the petitioner, etc.
Then supplemental petition is filed, setting forth
that Mary had been removed to Plaquemines,
where she is deprived of her liberty at the hands of
Maunsel White; and alias writ is prayed for,
and granted. On this petition, it appearing that
Edward Chapman knew that his wife departed
from this city, taking Mary with her, in defiance of
the original WRIT the Court considered said Edward
Chapman guilty of contempt of Court, and gave
the following reasons for committing said Chapman
to Jail for the aforesaid contempt:
''The Court considering that the return Of the
Sheriff shows the service of the writ of hdbeas cor
pus on E. Chapman, to have been made on the I'd
inst, at which time Mary Mcneil was living in
his house part of his family, and that she was
removed early on the morning of the following day
by the wife Of said Chapman, who took with her
two of his children, is satisfied that said Chapman
knew of the intended departure of his wife with
Miss Mcneil, or must have purposely withheld
from her the knowledge of the writ of habeds copus
head of the family she under his control, as
was also his wife. 1t is therefore ordered that the
said Edward Chapman stand committed to prison
until the said writ of hdbeas corpus be obeyed, and
that he pay the cost of this proceeding" ~
John S. Crockett answers, and says he admits
taking the girl away, but denies having done so
fraudulently in any well-understood meaning Of
the word" He AYERS that Mary McNeill is his
niece the daughter of his late sister, wife of the
late William McNeill who few hours before hia
death, made will, and appointed Morgan w.
Brown his executor and guardian to his minor
children, William and Mary He also AYERS that
said will the family of Mary believe to have been
made and procured by unfair means, and without
consent or knowledge of the tesator as to what he
was actually doing. They believe Mr.. Brown
would have been the last man to whom William
McNeill would have voluntarily entrusted his mi.
nors and their fortune.
That Mr.. McNeiIl was a very religious man; that
Brown was professed infidel. Mcneil was fond
of money, and would not have entrusted fortune
to one not perfectly responsible. At McNeill's
daaf rasnnnsiblp. hat 1nz,ht-
full if he could get credit in Nashville for one humid
red dollars. At the burial of Mcneil, Brown re.
fused to let the children have communication with
their aunt. He AYERS that the religious moral and
INTELLECTUAL education of Mary had been shamefuly
neglected by said Brown, etc. This answer is
sworn to. Then comes supplemental answer and
exceptions, as follows:
The whole proceedings shall be annulled, because
!. That the affidavit should have been made
by Mary, or by some person in her behalf.
2. That the petition Is of Brown, and signed bv
Godfrey Fogg as his agent, when the laws of LOUISE
ana do not authorize such proceeding.
3. That petition does not state in substance that
Mary is imprisoned deprived of liberty, as is spe-
cially required by Art. 1876, Code of Practice.
a. That no hd6eds corpus issue, except for
the purpose OF setting at liberty the person alleged
to be imprisoned or deprived ofliberty, consequently
none could issue in this case, petitioner does not
should be delivered TO him.
The answers Of the other parties are unimportant.
Under these proceedings, peadings and orders, the
young lady produced in Court and the parties
proceeded to trial and argument, after which thu,
Court delivered the following reasons for judgments
FOURTH DISTRICT CoURT--In the matter of NJ.
w. Br0Un-Wrn Of Habeas Corpus.-On the pro-
1uction of Mary McNeill 1he minor detained) this
lay in open Court and on hearing the parties, the
Court considering
l. That there can be no question as to the -
BOWER OF this Court to order something more than
he mere discharge of the minor. According to the
etter of Art. 824 Code of Practice the setting at
liberty there spoken Of is the freeing from the ile
.al restraint under which he is held 1t does'rot
mean discharge from the other legal restraints
,osed by law. If, for example, my slave was ille-
rally detained by another, it could not be surely
commended that on releasing him from such restraint
he was to be ''set at liberty from my CONTROL and
,e no longer slave. have further duty to per-
orm and that is to award her cllstodyto those en-
titled to it by law.
9 That the laws of the domici must prevails
he appointment of guardian under the will of her
ather, granted by the courts Of Tennessee, must be-
espected every where. No Court, in any civilized
country, would feel authorized to examine into the
correctness of It's appointment, under any crcum-
tances.
g. That it appearing that stratagem and violence
we're employed TO take her from the custody of a
lardian, appointed IN one OF these United States,
nd by force detan her here it is the duty of this
;ourt to give full force and effect to the judicial
roceedings of the tribunals of sister State.
For all which, if authorities be needfu refer to
'tory's Com. Conflict of Laws, p. All, s 1927
low. Mississippi Rep. All; the opinion of Judge
harkey, Berlucheur vs. Berlucheur, L. Rep, and
he Act of our Legislature, l843. Wherefore it is
rdered that the minor, Mary Mcneil, be delivered
the agent of her guardian, M. w. Brown, and that
,dward Chapman, present in Court, be discharged
ON his Imprisonment, on payment of the costs; and
nat there be Judgment against the said Edward
hapman and John S. Crockett, IN soldo, for the
,maining costs of this proceeding
MosT HORRIBLE "A most shocking and fatai
ccident occurred at Lowell on the evening OF the
9th ult A runaway horse, with the fore wheels
{ wagon attached knocked down young lady
Tho was crossing the street at the time, and her
othes becoming ehtangled in the wheels, she was