Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1857-03-06
LOCAL INTELLIGENCE.

DIS nonor Judge horstll, calling upon Dr. r.
K Skinner to bring before him, the said
through their next friend, Mr.. Amos Kendall,
prayed discharge from the custody Of said
Skinner, on account Of alleged cruel and bru-
tai treatment The writ was made return
able on Saturday, the 18th Of February, at 10
o'clock in the forenoon. At that time the
party appeared before the Judge aforesaid In
the Circuit Court room of Washington county,
with seven children, six only of whom were
originally named in the writ, the seventh
name in the writ being that Of a mute, Anne
liza Masters, q grown woman, who did not ap-
pear before the Judge. For the respondent,
p. 4 Skinner, appeared Mr.. Walter D. Da-
vidge; the District Attorney, Philip Barton
Key, Esq conducting the case on tho part Of
the appellants and Mr.. Kendall. A number
Of Witnesses had been subponaed by the Dis
trict ATTORNEY, Of whom were present Mrs
Anne Murray. Mira Mary Anne Weaver. Mrs
Cassandra Raymond, Mr.. Burrows, Mr.. Seyes,
and Mr.. W. II. b Weaver. The children
brought into Court by respondent in compli-
ancs with the writ were John Quinn, Ann s.
SIymsnoski, Isaac VIM, Joseph White, Jas.
Henry, (all mutesJ and Josephine Jenkins, a
blind child.
In presenting his return 10 the writ, DR., p
K. Skinner made solemn affirmative to tho
truth thereof, wherein he denies the charge
Of cruel and brutal treatment of the said chill
dren as alleged in the writ Of habeas corpus
Mr.. Davidge said that though defend ant 8
witnesses were most of them absent, he still
wished the case to 90 on, and in so doing Offer
ed in explanation of the manner in which the
children came into the hands Of his client
several indentures Of apprenticeship, and
stated circumstances going to show the legality
Of the grounds upon which Mr. Skinner held
the children in question. Mr.. Davidge reiter-
ated the total and smplest disclaimer of all
cruel, harsh or brutal treatment of said chill
drsn By his client He first offered the linden.
ture Of James Henry, sometimes called James
Henry Skinner, aged ii years, dated the 18Th
March, 1856. This indenture was given by
the governors of the almshouse of the city of
New York, and bound the boy James for
period Of ten years till his MAJORITY to said
Skinner, making it his duty we'll to treat ard
sufficiently to feed, clothe and care for the
boy, and to teach o. have him taught the sign
language, d.. In the same manner, and BY
the Same parties, was John Quinn bound. The
child Josephine Jenkins was not bound to Dr.
Skinner at the time of iSsuing the writ, but on
the next day she was indentured to him by
consent Of her only surviving parent, her
mother, by John Ii. Goddard and F. J. Muir
phey, ESQ, two justices Of the peace of this
county. she is twelve years of age, and was
bound for nine years. An indenture given by
Antonio Szymsnoski, father Of Ann Szyman-
oski, was next shown, Of date 29th November,
1885 Here Mr.. Key remarked that the in
dentures made in Washington require, in or
der to be binding, the consent of the Orphans
Court and Q judge, but that six months are
allowed wherein TO procure the same An
indeLture for another pupil was stated to be
IN the hands Of the secretary Of the New York
almshouse, which was thu reason Why it was
not then produced. Joseph White was stated
to have been placed with DIR. Skinner by his
father, aud is now held by his permission and
authority. Amelia Masters was not present
before the judge, as she had herself left Dr.
SINNERS house, and was not in his keeping.
Mr. Key said that the children were here,
praying, through their next friend, Mr. Ken
dali To be discharged from the custody CT DR..
Z. d Skinner, on account Of his inhuman and
brutal treatment Ct them in many respects
The apprenticsshiPs made in New York are
not binding here, as the Circuit Court had
decided IN the case Of Sawyer, a year or two
ago; the parents Of the children, who had
yielded them to DR. Skinner 8 charge, were
illiterste, and perhaps careless whether their
children were we'll or i'll treated, so that they
got rid OF the care CT them but Ii matters not
how binding soever indentures of apprentice
ship may be, they do not in any case Justify
or permit abuse Of the parties apprenticed
The terms in these indentures. calling for
plenty Of food and clothing, bad not been COM
piled with, and therefore they had been in
fripgsd by the respondent himself; he had
not complied with their stipulstions and had
therefore forfeited his claims under them. Mr..
hey said be had witnesses present who would
show his honor that DR. Skinner Is an entirely
unit man to have these children in his charge
and custody
Bis Honor remarked that if the childr,n
were legally bound to DR. Skinner, il was
questionable whether their discharge from
him is within his (the Judge's) jurisdiction.
Mr.. Key said that the children were here
appealing by their next friend for a discharge
from the brutality and violence Of the respond
emit Under these circumstances no array of
lndentures eoald mako any difference, and the
Judge undoubtedly possesses full power 10
discharge the petitioners, as prayed for. He
admitted that q discharge from mere indent-
ures IN ordinary circumstances requires an
appeal to the Circuit Court, but in the present
case the prayer was for relief from present
suffering, which would not admit the deIsy OF
an appeal TO the Court. This is the true
ground Of the present prayer, and demands
Immediate action.
Mr.. Davidge secuted the idea that the chill.
dren were appealing for remedy through their
next friend. When had they ever asked to
De discharged! Was not this q self-consti
tinted next friend, . for whom the children
cared nothing at all? lie questioned also the
y Tue lace OF these in
dentures, but was willing TO admit that r..
spondent may &c compelled to give rocogni.
RANGES to appear before the Circuit Court ::
tnat Is, II the facts Of cruelty and ill-treat.
ment were proven He then read MARYLAND
act OF 1923. chapter As, showing the remedy
against masters by compelling their appear
anes before the Court
Mr. Key replied that as to the child ren's
not having asked TO be released from DR.,
Skinners keeping, 1t was 10 be accounted for
% their being under duress, and to being
sehooled and drilled by their tormentor in
every thing they do. He mr.. K had him
self advised these proceedings some month.
ago He had written a letter to Mr. Z in
which this sdYiee was given The informa.
ton On which Re acted was derived from some
ladies' Of the highest responsibility, and he
lad information from other quarters besides
HE case was one which appeals to our hu
n2nliy. lie then replied TO Mr. Dayidge on
The subject Of the act Of Maryland of 1898,
saying that this act gives nothing like prOtec-
uon to any master in case Of inficting cruelty
upon ais apprentice. He argued against de-