Nashville patriot. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1858-1860, 1858-09-28

very interesting case has occupied the
attention of the public for a few days past,
and was decided yesterday. The following is
brief statement of the case:
The Hon. B. F. McKERNAN, Judge of the
Criminal Court of the city of Memphis, upon
the petition of G.. T. WooD, of Kentucky,
who represented himself as the legally APP
pointed guardian of JENNIE ISABELLA MACKEY,
few days since granted writ of habeas COR
pus against FRENCH THOMAS and Wife to APP
pear before said Judge and bring before him
the body of said child.
The writ was served upon defendant,
THOMAS, but before the service of the writ
Mrs. THOMAS, the grandmother. of the child,
| left the jurisdiction of the Court and took
the child away with her. Mr. THOMAS ap-
peared before the Judge, and his counsel,
Messrs. ScoTT d DIXON. moved to dismiss the
petition and quosh the writ upon the follow
ing grounds: 1st. That the petition shows on
! its face that the child was domiciled in Ten
| nessee at the time of the appointment of the
guardian in Kentucky; that the Court in
Kentucky had no jurisdiction over it's person.
and therefore, the appointment was null and
void.
3D. That the writ of habeas corpus in Ten
nessee can be granted only in criminal or
supposed criminal cases. and that the statute
of 81 Charles III, chap. 2, has no application
save where party has been imprisoned, or is
in custody on some charge for which he is
| liable to be tried.
3rd. That guardian appointed in Ken
lucky has no right to sue in this State to
| recover his ward, without taking out letters
of guardianship in this State, and that such
guardian could not exercise any authority
over the person or property of the ward in
this State
4th. That the remedy in this case is a civil
remedy, and the Judge of the Criminal
Court of Memphis cannot entertain jursdic-
ton Of it. That the act creating said court
only gave it jurisdiction over crimes and mis-
demeanors.
These points were ably and deliberately ar
gued by Messrs. SCOTT & DIXON for the de-
PENDANT, and SCRUGGs and PosToN for the
petitioner.
The Judge overruled the motion
Messrs. SCRUGGs and PosToN, upon the
filing of the answer, traversed the same, in
order to put the defendant THOMAS in con-
tempt of the court for failing to obey the
writ. in not having the person of the child
before the court. Several witnesses were
examined in order to show that the defendant
advised, aided, and assisted his wife in taking
the child out of the State. The Judge after
patient hearing of the case, dismissed the
petition and discharged the defendant. The
case excited great deal of interest. We
learn that the history of the child. for the
possession of whose person the suit was insti
tuted, is briefly this: She is an orphan, both
parents being dead-an interesting little girl
of seven years of age. She has been under
the custody of her grandparents with whom
she has resided since the death of her mother,
and who are of course doatingly attached to
her. She is the heir to very large property
in Kentucky estimated to be worth 100000.
This property in the event of her death with
out issue is devised to the petitioner G. T.
II HIN h. nf Ii.
The result of the suit gives very general
satisfaction