The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1858-04-23
Supreme Court-SPecial Term.
Before Hon. Judge Cerke.
MADAM REsTEIL ORDERED TO ACCOUNT FOR

MADAM RESTELL ORDERED TO ACCOUNT FOR THE
CUSTODY OF CHILD.
April 21-The People at the relation Of Rederica NJ
Neidlinsr Mary Lehman, commonly called Madam
Resteu-rhe writ Of habeas corpus issued in this
requiring tie defendant 10 produce before the Court
the infant child Of the restor alleged TO be unlawfay
detained or TO have been unawfuly disposed OF by the
sad defendant me relator, an unmarried woman, was
delivered OF male child the 30th OF August, 1855, at
the house Of the defendant, who styles herself the
turn 10 this writ 10 be midwife and female physician.
Amost Immediately after the delivery TIE child taken
rom the resor the defendant and that time the
mother has him. In the return the defendant
denied that she mad the child in her custody under
her poser, or that che detans him or did detn
him. she also alleges that the relater solicited
procure some Person who would adopt the CHILD, add
alor freely and voluntarily surrendered him 70 Mrs
Wright with request that he should be given 70 the lady,
Who had expressed desire 10 adopt him, and that he
vas econ after disposed OF given away FOR adoption
The Court the first instance the sh ofJanuary 1885,
sier the reurn thought proper 70 send the 10 refe
repor; whether ssd child any
possession or under the control Of the defendant and
whether the defendant ar,ed with custody OF he child
AID 70 whom, and under what authority she disposed
Of HIM and # the defer dant knew lad any Of
knowing IN whose custody the child then subse-
queBi order bearing date January "a 1885, substituted
the place OF me order Ct ,ne sh OF January somewhat
modify The previous order and directing the referee
reFri whether Ire child the custody OF the dc'en
he hsd been transferred 10 another, and So At what
ine for what and by what authority the transfer
TOOK pace and whether snd rarsferi any made oy
the coneeht OF petitioner and al her request THIS order
drecied the referee append his report the
noIy Which shor be taken before him this proceeding
me referee rerors from the proofs and allegations
iaker and made before him that the child the pos
under the control Of the defendant the
tfAugusi 1856 hat although there was come evidence
before NJ that The reistor wiling induced 20
part WITH the child, yet he states there evidence
70 SHOW what really became Of him aler be bal passed
INTO the hancs OF the defendant and that she did show
What she had done with me child what Ultimately be-
oaneoft He consequently reports rs conclusion that
defendant respousb.e tbs Court for the innk
.hal the reptr. plainly justified by tie testimony, al
inoufh he question eteiner me re,aor vas wiling or
vas Induced 70 part with the child-!n other words,
whether ste consented that person should ADOPT him
has Iernency 70 he Questions properly and legally
Sc, the Ccur, delern mig hereafier Il the child should
DC produced, whether the mother competent pergon
% have ne care OF Inn FOR i may stn some llsosi-
riy he Affirm ed that mother who wiling AMI
snxous 10 with her nfLri in Immediately after hs birth
must be destitute Ct that affection without which no per
cor oataole Of suitably rearing and bringing up q cnd.
AZ far tie defendant y concerned she cannot avail her.
self OF slct allegation child cannot be disposed af
Or alep.ted Ike oha,eL A ialher even, cannot Goa
tract away he custody Of his legitimate children As 2r
Justice Cowen remarks 10 the People against Jercsn @
H, 4l, "Tnose Countries which father has general
Tover 10 dispose Of hschdren have always been consider
ed tartaro1 Our own isH has allowed the
Gee or s1eb power, txcep. for specific AMI
poYary purrose-sleh an eshp daring he "a
Tiers lfe, or guardianship after hs deatnr The Only
questions ro~ 70 Ne considered therefore, are whether
tee chId vas at any TINE 10 the possession or under
defendant has Parted With tsd child We have seen
FRAT The retree tss reported that he tas posses
tCn ard under the control Of the defendant he
Of August 1858 ste hss entirely failed To give any
fns;ory account q what EAs become OF nm since that
line Our statute declares hat i not enough for The
person UPON whom tbs writ shall been Gully served
& CSC. tec "a, margns) state "whe,ner be have
CT nave net tie parry as o1siody or under ns
or ressrArt" "f heNtsl nave mad the rarty 10 his
Tover or custody or under restraint Aiany time prior
Gaostqutntio The date Of tie writ but has transferred
fuof ersisdy or RESTRAINT 70 archer, the eksl
STATE part euary 10 wnon, Of What Tine for what
and BY what authority such transfer place Assum-
M, therefore. a. do, that the defendant naf this chnd
her power and custody tie 0h day q August 1855
shoh bold 20 be fact fly established tbs case,
ard shoh tte can 70 iorger gansay she must make
further retErn aIder oath, fol- and explicit and Il etc
eth ustt that she has hottie ctid ner power Ard
outtody, ard she has transferred him 10 some olner
person ~ alleged for adopt on, she specify par.
tCulary 70 whom q. What tine, FOR what re ani ~
what authority suth transfer took place.
all eve her tee Gays from toe 9. the order "
be entered On Tie deCson 10 ins further return.
and failure Ct wnicbst viii be my duty. pursuant 20
section % of tie statute already menuored e r. 500
marr na) 70 tsue ar attachment against ner comuaui-
re the Sheriff 70 LpIreretd Der ard her before lis
fsurt