New-York daily tribune. [volume] (New-York [N.Y.]) 1842-1866, 1853-06-14
LAW INTELLIGENCE.
Deeision of Judge Barcuo-The Child Restored to
In En-
THE TRAINER CASE.
SUPREME COURT Kings co)-sPrcrlL TEAM


SUPREME COURT Kings co)-sPIcIiL TEAM
The People REL Charles Trainer Rose Cooper re'p
In this csse Judge Bsrcue yesterday morning made the
following decision giving the custody OF the child Jane TO
the father Charles Trainer.
Bv The Court Bsrculo Justice The ease comes before
the Court the return OF the respondent to writ OF
kabcai coDEs issued by the relsDr To obtain the cas-
tody OF his infant child Upon its merits when dlvesei
Of those e1trsneous Circumstances which have gwen al
unnatural interest and nOtOrsy 10 the matter II IS very
plain and simple. But several and highly important
legal questions have been presented and argued oy the
Learned counsel which will be proper first to consider
Its contended by the learned couGse for the respond
ent that the power of awarding writ OF habea' corpus by
this Court be exercised only at generstsrm Reliance
had upon the which requires the application to be
made
/ /, the Supreme Court during its sitting; or.
During any term vacation of the supreme Court
10 the Chancellor, of the Justices OF the 81
preme Court, any officers who may be authorized TO
perform the duties OF justice Of the Supreme Court at
Chambers being residing within the county where the
prisoners Is detained
This precise question before the Court under
former when special terms held for the tran
ssction Of certain men enumerated business and Chle
Justice Savage expressly decided that the writ could be is
sued nv the Court at Special Term TX parte Beatty H.
Wen 22s IL hardly necessary 10 add that under our
present system much greater powers are given to the
sp.ca term for We possess not only the general powers
OF the old Supreme Court but also the entire powers OF the
former Court Of Chsncery either Of which courts had
without the aid Of any Statute AZ the common law Jusdlc
ton over kabeas corpus
H. Again il is insisted that single Justice sitting in
Kings County has authority Ia sind the writ INTO the
Civ of NewYork This argument is based upon the sup
position that the writ issued by the Justice and not Oy
the Court, which unfOunded in fact But II the past we're
supposed, the argument would nevertheless oe rama
cious For Justice of this Court can. at Chambers
award writ Of haJeas corpus that shall into part
Of the State This point before Justice Harris Ia lne
People Samuel Hanna, J How Pr Rep 49, lie then
held that the Limitation contained in the words being or
residing within the county in the statute above cted
which re, by counsel applied 10 the last preceding
class Of officers authorized 10 perform the duties of
of Leaving the Justices
OF Supreme Court the unrestricted srisdicton
they ssed under the previously existing statutes
In that case writ was allowed by Judge Harris sitting in
Albany 10 bring I'D person detained IN Columbia COunty
So also in The People W. Woodruff How fr Keep 80
Justice Willard allowed writ at hrs Chambers saratoga
Springs returnable bet re- the County Judge OF Wahng
ton 10 bring up prisoner the latter County SO in the
familiar case If The People Mercen. Page So the
Chancellor sitting Saratoga Springs brought Def re him
child from the City of NewYork IL may be added that
these decisions in entire conformity to the general
practice of the Judges OF this Court
Ill Ii is commended that the matter i5 Res ddJuftcdt1
the same question having recently been heard before
Judge Du.r Of the Superior Court, City of New York
Two may be given to this proposition First The
case does stand upon the state OF facts tor the
reaor has given evidence of rant having been eKer
ised since the former proceeding Secondly That learn
cd and ACCOMPLISHED Judge doubted his authority to make
an orde dspusng OF the custody of th child That douo,
probably controlled his DECISION aud may nave been well
founded as applied this Judge of Court of limited
Jurisdiction aud clothed with general equity powers
Upon this point quote from the opinion OF Judge Duer
the following: II certainly concur with the learned Coun
eel for The respondent that not sitting here rs
Judge in equity clothed WIN these large 1scrsn9nary
powers in relation TO thu disposition End custody OF
infant. which the Lord Chancellor in England, ss the
r. preventative of the Sovereign is competent and has
arg since been accustomed. TO exercise Powers Just as
extensive d. ub not were vested IN our late Court OF
Chancery; and So by force of the Constitution,
have been transferred to- and are nov vested in the
Sunreme Court of the State. But they do not belong to
me either AS a Supreme Court Commissioner, or as
Judge Of the Superior Court cannet therefore. exer
"cise the discretion which they confer even woad be
4 Tho me in prD
"ceedng in a double capacity The Supreme Court As
succeeding the jurisdiction OF the Chancellor,
the general guardian Of infants and such has excu
sive right determine all questions in relation TO their
dsposon and custody except where the questions pro
pery arise action between husband and wife for an
absolute or limited divorce
II will thus be seen that the learned Judge comedies 20
Hi, Court the powers which h. did not deem himself TO
possess and which now invoked and necessary to
afford the relief prayed for The Argument OF res adu
c0a therefore falls o.he ground For would be Idle to
talk of a previous adjudication being bar, when the
former tribunal had right dudcAe the point in
royersy IL will also be that IRE in manner con
AT win the decision of Judge Duer This Court being
clothed with full legal and equitable power entertans no
doubt Of its authority to make final disposition OF this
" We will now proceed to examine the upon its
merits Charles Trainer, the reat0r claims that Jane
Trainer an nfsnt nine years Of age Is his legitimate child
and that the pondent without authority detans her AZ
h.us. Of Lfame, No. l0l Mercerst IN the City of New
Yo,k The admits that the reator is the ftnsr
of Jane but denies that he Was lawfully married to her
roher The latter being slave and denies that the child
l. under any restraints and AYERS that she roignqry re-
mains with the respondent These the substantial facts
man brh decision depends, although numerous ire
yAnt matters have been brought into the case and quite
a unnecessary amount of Ill feeling excited and displayed.
These matters relate TO the fact that Jane was born
slave belonging 10 respondent that she was made tree by
wing into the State o Ohio before she came
to New lork and tat me restOr Is ana always n@' oeel
II Is hardly necessary TO remind the parties and their
csuus.l that up, question of this kind the law in this
State recognizes distinction Of color race and that
al fathers whatever may b. their standing in s0cieyhave
prtci.ey thu same authority and control over their
children The relator - inds before the Court simply
man. prosecuting hi- pater2 rights while the respondent
appears as woman having no claim upon the cal1 oy
sereement consaDguniiy but only through the aztec
tons II wholly unnecessary therefore 10 inquire into
the complexion Of the the reput alton o: the other
II she the ted lady 10 the land and be the
most humble OF lis inhabitants their rights, IN the eye OF
Il las ard their consideration in tbs view Of this Court
would be the same
IL regard the Legitimacy OF the child have been
somewhat embarrassed because there Is no direct ev-
deuce Of the fact except the stmOny OF the reat0r him
self For although such testimony has been usually ad
inted not quite sure that stands upon any solid
foundation. In the view however which take Of the
the legitimacy OF the child Is not Tact oil vital I'M
pOrtance.
The relator swears tha, ne married in Mobile by
black Methodist preacher-his wife being slave and both
members of the denomination Upon this II Is claimed oy
respondents counsel that the marriage VOID oy treason
Of statute Of the State Of Alabama forbiddng slaves 20
marry Whether il be true the argument tends to show
that all the slaves in that legfmats II IS no.
necessary more particularly 70 inquire TX Is sum ent Tor
that the marriage being by words G PTesHt anu oioN
ed by COha bifafiOn good marriage Al common law
Assuming, then that the child legitimate no" stAnds
the question between the father and the Respondent IS 70
It's custody To this question Out one answer eau DC
given That the father has title superior 70 any stranger
less the doctrine Of authorities than II Is prnci
pie Of human nature The fathers rights are paramount
to the mothers until be foreits biz claims b niscon
I Nr-.L