The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1854-06-20
Supreme C0uYt-special Term.
Before Hon. Judge Roosevelt.
yNruprcrrNu

INTERESTING OPINION ON HABEAs CORPUS.
JUNE 19.-In the matter Of John Hatton, an Infant.-
This of habeas corpus to determine the proper
custody of orphan boy In such cases. it is well set
tied that the Court acts not as between adverse ants
certain extent especially when reasonable consuls the
chid's wishes. The boy, John Hatton is alleged by his
Mnkler of Upper Red Hoon This allegation is not only
denied by Mnker but oyerthrown entirely by the per-
fecty satisfied and anxious to remain where he u.s.
on farm in the country where bis father lived, and
where he himself has also lived for several years. His
uncle it is true alleges that the boy is at times employed
in ssmking cows and making fresb But is not such an
occuption with suitable intervals of schooling, in rural
neghborhood far appropriate than "washing the
tun1blers and sweeping the oors' of drinking estab
shment in Great Jones street? The boz, It is said is
not of sufficient age to exercise sound discretion. He
is eleven years old; and his we'll as his
years demonstrate his intelligence. He showed his
good sense, too, as conceive, in leaving the place
milking and making fres," at which his guardian
so much revolts, the first is occupation in which
the most distinguished men Of the land have delighted,
and the second habit which even presidents and scho
lars, without lowering their dignity, have contin-
ued during the days OF their highest elevation Mr..
Minkler, to whom this writ Of habeas corpus was
directed complains and with much reason on of
the double litigation to which he has been subjected It
appears, although not disclosed when the present appl
cation was first instituted that previous proceeding
oil the same character, within few weeks was had
before Mr. Justice Clerke, who, after hearing
Mr. Minkler No new fact is disclosed and the only pre-
ence suggested by the applicant for another hearing
fore different Judge is that the first hearing had
g in hurried manner" and that he, tho applicant
believes that, If the matter had undergone full con-
sderation and investigation and all the proofs been
heard and considered such order made would
against Morcein, e HILL $685. might have justified
second litigation but new opinion, Gf the willing
belief Of defeated party, such as that expressed
has no such effect. Were it otherwise there would
be no end Of Lit gation PARTIES it has been truly sad
arc always surprised at dccsons against them and al
ways believe such decisions to be hasy and i'll consider
ed There is moreover, obvious unftness calling
upon one judicial officer to listen to such allegations
against another and thus in effect to review, colater-
ally the action Of brother Judge, having the same
authority himself. For that alone, we're not
otherwise fully convinced OF the corrcctness Of
Mr.. Justice Clerkes disposition Of the case, should
feel my self called upon to make the order which
he did The boy must therefore be remanded to care
and custody Of Mr. Mnkler in whose family he has lived
for many years. in which he has expressed his wish
to remain and in wrch well satisfied his morals,
his comfort and his permanent welfare will be best pro-
NOTED. -
THE STREET CLEANING CONTRACT.
McCgfe7fy as. Giasier, Commissioner of Streets
-RoesEvELT 1.-THE plaintiff in this case is an in
habtant of Williamsburg. He does not pretend
that he will be subjected to any undue taxation il
the contract for cleaning certain streets in the city
of New York, instead of being given him, shall be
granted to the higher biddera Ills object is, or at
least purports to be, profit, and profit only He does
not desire to clean the streets OF New York merely
for the satisfaction of cleaning them or If he does
no one will prevent in that respect the qualification
OF his wishes. II he has legal claim he must, like
other suitors, wait until it can in due course be
legally established If he has none there ia no reason
for an injunction to prevent an Interference with
that which does not exist. The right Of the plaintiff,
II any is to the profit IL any, which he would real
ne. lie has no right to stop the cleaning OF the
streets; and it may be that when the case comes to
be nally tried instcad OF profit, his contract, had
he htaint9it, win appear TO have neen losing ono.
If bids, as Suggested BY tee olieerin chargc OF