New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-06-14

~ obhges him 20 provide for It's wants An" - ~
children to his charge in preference TO me ciAls VI ~
mother or any other person.
Even II we lay ASIDE the REALTORS testimony ana
true the statement 10 the return, thst Jane IS rs h
mate child, still his claim would DO superior 20 tnst o ~
respondent any other stranger although INFERIOR 70 .
Of the mother Clarke CHI Rep. In every aspect
IRE 10 "ich ms case can or receives, We ae - ths
10 ADMIT that the fathers right 10 the possesses VI so
child superior 10 that of the respondent; snd may De
psrconed for saying that II h. moved ia the CHER "ss
Il life, be- white man of standing and influence ia
the community, the truth Of this proposition would be us
verssy acknowledged and any tribunal that having s
thoty should hesitate to afford relief woad subject Itself
10 ju,t rsproach. The public v0cs. well IS cannon
sense would declare that If Courts permit children Of
such TO leave their parents and take their abode
they please most valuable social relation would be
subyerted and the foundations Of domestic peace and
joymeDt broken up and destroyed.
v Again is insisted that there's restraint because
the child remains with hs respondent Of her own free sill
This brings up the important enquiry NhstB re-
srsint spilled infant OF this tender sgel The po
stion of the counsel would undoubtedly hold true OF an
adult who when delivered from the detention becomes ms
own sser and umed TO know where To and how
TO take care Of himself But it is by no means true of
young gncrart child In such cases there may De legal
restraint without the exercise Of force OF ooerclos
enough that the accused ntereres the father
from forcbly akDg possession of the child Inc person
having the custody Of such i0zn without any cisnAs
Of right is bound TO deliver Il into the hands OF ne
father whenever he presents himself to receive ii and IS
permitted retain posse ss0n OF H. underline presence
however may be, that the child desires 10 rens
Thus child 20 TO a neghbOrs house and coz dede 70
abide hare when the farther demands Il OF that negnOor
II not sufficient for the latter 10 say 20 him, you may
come in and persuade il home and II yOu 81 sceed IN
its you may take il, but you shall not "e u 10
GO He is bound permit the tatherto exercise ms pa
rental au hory Of coercion and If he prevents thAt ne
is guilty of rel trsnt within the fair meaning OF the term
ANY other rule would work mOnsfrous evils Hundreds OF
children could be taken from their parents by the cndSn
affection they have toward theirnurse
In Msrcein The People % Wen. So Bronson Jusuce'
observes"The question here is whether the child
actually suffering under duress OF Imprisonment OUT
whether there that kind of restraint which defeats me
"igh's Of the father The respondent having the cho
under his roof positively forbds the father TO enter the
house except upon terms which proper self respect
made nadmissbe but he could submit TO the terms
she only had license 10 enter the house" to see mary -
not for the purpose taking her under his care and pro
lection 1t impossible to deny that this IS such re-
strsnt defeats the right of the father ana lays the pro
per foundation for asking for dress by hI6eas corPHs
In the case before US il is clear that the child - STU
diousy guarded and kept beyond the reach Of me htoe
The that pretended is IN the language OF tue e'uE
that "she has enjoyed and so far a. me respondent II con
cerned shall enjoy entire and undisturbed liberty 70 90
where she peAses In other words and this iast Is sus
tanned by the proof she prepared and resolved knowing
IN. chds partially for herself TO maintain Jane in her do
termination TO 90 her father, and torepe alaempts
ON his part obi.n possession Of the chd against her
will We have hesitation in determining that the con
duct of the respondent amounts in law to restraint
VI Having arrived at the conclusion that the reistor
legally entitled to the care and custody OF ms daughter
and that she is held under improper restraint Oy th res
pondent the only remaining inquiry is to the remedy
The former demands delivery, while the latter inslsts
that The powers Of the Cout exhausted when we sna
removed the restraint &nd Stt the hoo LUZ
case claims that results should follow the decson
the other par to return in saf" Quo ant 6sia"
IT has already been substantially admitted that in regard
10 adults delivered BY the Statute writ the positions Of
the respondents cause is tensoe and that was properly
So held by Judge Duer sitting commissioners underline
Stsut. Is not controversial But that is correct as ap
piled to the case in this Court OF ample Jurisdiction lode
pendent of the habeds corpus act Is most conhden' ID
MED. ,,,
We are swar. that some of the speak OF children
exercising their own choice aud discretion This may be
well enorgb when We assured that they possess what
may fairly be calico discretion Whether ths can ever
predicted of children undert fourteen years OF age IN
whom the law in numerous respects declares there no
discretion we need determine. IL IS sufficient or
US that this child does manifest that degree OF uds
ment which, in the opinion OF this Court would quay ner
10 select her own dOmcil and guardian, That she Is od
enough feel preference and that such feeling to"su
The respondent is quite apparent But that such prefer
ence i. wise and discreet cannot be admitted Indeed t
can hardly be commended that house OF hlftne ~ a
proper place, Of its inmates suitable person Tor
the education of any chic But independent OF TINS over
whniDg proof actual indiscreon we cannot sanction
nor give counenance the doctrine that such children are
10 c.ntro their own movements, and select their own
places of residence II has no foundation In reason or JUS
ice snd plainly opposed to the laws OF the land as well
the law of God.
move the restraint by rendering judgment which shall
dpose of the custody Of the child and conclude this con-
troversy IL would be idle ceremony for the Court to
try cause without making decision by which the fruits
of the litigation could be reached We have multitude OF
preeedents for guidance in this particular Ia the mat
ter OF Dowes Il John Rep 32s) the Supreme Court or
directed an officer attend and protect them in their re-
turn" In The People Mercein, % HUI, 1921 Chlei
Justice Nelson concludes his opinion in these words An
order must therefore be entered that the child be dev
cred 10 the reaior That where alter two or
three years of litigation, the Court ordered the chid 70
be taken from it. mother and grandfather and given to
the husband and father although the child was under nye
wears of age And in former stage OF that case 10 Wen
o. the Chancellor, in commenting on the overs OF the
Supreme Court award the custody OF the child on re-
yesng the proceedings Judge ngles declared thtth
bs was wrong the Supreme Court should not only have
his decision but should also have proceeded to
make final disposition OF the custody OF the chlid
And in The People REL Nickerson l9 Wen le An order
made that the ch Id be delivered 10 the nher ana
that the care and the custody Of her be committed to
him"
Guided by these lights shall direct an order to be
entered adiudgng that the said Charles Trainer entitled
Ia the care and custody of said Jane Trainer ana directing
her TO be delivered to him her father leaving him. like
the rest of US responsible bis conscience ard his God
for the manner 10 which be shall fulfil the trust thus re-
stored to him ,-,.,
rs CIRCUIT CoURT-Before Judge NELsos
INDICTMENTS AGAINST CAPT AALoNsf and DIX chklsrlN'
At the openng of the Court Monday forenoon, MIR.
OConor District Attorney moved to enter HOe proequ
on the indictment found against Capt NJ 10 tns Dsrct
Court il having been removed into ana tired IN ms court
He also moved for HOe pr0seqW IN the case OF Dr CurS
tan on the Indictment TO ALE ged murder OF tnkee
Chap" and also the same charge as related u capt
Maoney The motions were granted, and Capt NJ and
DR. G. discharged
jud0e N complained Of the want Of accom- nodaOns
experienced by the L. s. Court. which would require him
now 10 hold Circuit Court in chambers and give up the
Court room TO the District Court
SUPERIOR COURT-SPEcIAL TERM-Before Judge Duer
BROADWAY RAILROAD.
Tboas Davis Palmer Jacob Sharpe end others
ard the Mayor Aldermen, &C.
INQUIRY as to the validity Of the grant made to Jacob
Sharpe and others by the Common Council, TO lay rail-
road track in Broadway