Eastern times. [volume] (Bath, Me.) 1846-1857, 1851-05-22

both houses have been newly carpeted. The
chairs of the presiding officers are such neat
and easy affairs that we fear another induce
ment may be added TO the many that now ex-
lst, to create aspirants to occupy them.
In my future letters shall make occasional
glances at the members of each branch, after
the popular style of last year. My opinion is,
that the lower branch comprises more talent
than IL did last year-which is hardly the case
however, with the upper branch.
The Supreme Court commenced its law term
In this county On Tuesday. On account of the
repairs going on in the Court House, their
sessions have been held in Winthrop Hail.
One of the most important and interesting cas-
es that has engaged its attention, is that which
was tried last fall, and to which you alluded
at the time, in which the question was involv-
ed ,chether a father can nrerocdbiy gipe d'cdy
has o,cn child The facts in the case, as de-
veloped at the jury trial, may not be familiar
to your readers, and being sufficiently invested
with interest, in my mind, to warrant publ
cation, will relate them.
Some four years since, DR.. Richardson,
who is now practising physician in the town
of Hallowell, married daughter of the late
DIR. Samuel Farnsworth, of North Bridgton.-
In about year after the marriage, while Mrs.
r. lay at the point of death, she committed her
little daughter into the custody Of her mother,
enjoining upon her to take charge and control
of it-and it is not denied that the father fully
assented to the arrangement. After lapse of
some two years, DIR. Richardson married Sec
ond wife-whereupon he wrote to Mrs. Farms
worth, and intimated his wish to obtain posses
sion again of his child. This resulted in cor
respondence between the two, in which Mrs.
F. insisted upon fulfilling her pledge to her
dying daughter, and endeavored to induce the
DIR. not to interpose any obstacles 10 its en-
forcement-promising that the child should
remain with him a reasonable portion of each
year, and that his wishes, in regard to it,
should be complied with in every other respect.
DR.. R. finally persuaded Mrs. F. to allow her
daughter to bring the child down and visit
him at Hallowell, and when he had thus OBJ
tanned possession of the child, he reremptorily
refused to consent to its removal. Under this
state of affairs, Mrs. F. had writ of personal
rep!erin sued out, and thus obtained possession
of the child, and the process was sustained by
the jury, at the last October term of the Su-
preme Court, Judge Howard on the Bench
after very able arguments from George Evans,
on the part of the process, and H. w. Paine
and Judge Emmons, of Hallowell, against it,
Exceptions were taken TO the ruling of the
Court, and the case comes up on the excep-
tons. Mr.. Paine opened the case to the full
bench, stating his position and citing the law
upon which they relied-which was, however,
rather limited. Mr.. Evans replied in an argu-
ment of some three hours length, and the case
was closed by argument nearly as long,
from Judge Emmons. From some technical
in relation to the original pleadings
trial was first claimed. The argument
he most forcibe and argumentative, and with
out pretending to give much of an idea of his
positions, l will allude to one or two which
occur to my mind. Among other objections,
The transaction was objected to as being against
public policy-just as much SO as for man to
give away his rife. 1t could not be regarded
as gift, for it lacked that essential element Of
a gift, inn,ediate deItrery-it must then partake
because there is in it no consideration upon
which enforcement can be compelled. The
right of the father, in this respect, was COM
pared 10 the right which one has of making
oiA, in which the power of reroking the act is
reserved and not lost. 1t was also contended
that the contract was invalid, being parol
instead of written contract.
On the other hand, Mr.. Evans considered
the right of parents to give away their children
as too well established to admit of controversy
it is frequently done by indenture, and in
other ways. The only question seemed to be
as to the reuoca6leness of the act. The idea that
it was against public policy was refuted, and
quite number of cases were cited showing
that the law was disposed 10 sanction such acts.
The child is in the custody of Mrs Farms
worth, and the principal motive which seems
to impel her to retain it, is sense of religious
obligation to fulfil the dying injunction of her
daughter. The father of the child has made it
a few slight presents, and Mrs. F. has made no
charges against him for its expenses. Consid-
cradle money must have been expended
both sides to settle this exceedingly novel and
singular, but by no means unimportant ques-
ton. 1t would certainly be unfair to impugn
the motives of either of the partes-;hey may
both be prompted by afection-certain am l
that the conduct of Mrs. F. is relieved from all
sinister imputations by those best acquainted
with her character. The opinions of the Court
will not probably be made public under year.