Cleveland morning leader. [volume] (Cleveland [Ohio]) 1854-1865, 1859-02-09
Importaut Decision,

In the matter of Frances E. Aldnch, on ha- |
beas corpus, before Judge Foote.
The facts in this case are briefly; The parents
of Frances E, sweet child of eight years,
former residents of Munson, Geauga county,
separated some three years ago, and some time
after DR.. Aldrich, the father, procured divorce
in Minnesota; and on his return, fixed his resi-
deuce in this city, and married again. The wife
continuing to reside in Munson, and retaining
the child, as is claimed, by an agreement made
with the fIther at the separation.
Some two years since, the father visited the
mother and child, and by consent of the moth
er, took the child out for ride, and immediate
ly started to carry her away. The friends OF
the mother followed, overlook him in Mayfeld,
and rescued the chill. which was returned
DR.. A. thereupon caused habeas corpus to
issue by Judge Tilden, of this city, who on
hearing permitted the child to remain with the
mother.
One or two attempts have since been made
by Dr. Aldrich, through the authorities OF this
county, to procure the custody of the child, but
the officers never succeeded in obtaining pos
session of her person. No application was ever
made by him to the courts of the judicial district
where the mother resided.
A short time since, the mother was married
to Mr.. Leland, of Munson, with whom, with
the child, she has since resided at Munson.
The present writ on the application of DR..
Aldrich, was allowed by Judge Bolton, and
served by the Sheriff of Geauga county, who
returned that he found the child in the custody
of Leland, the step-fatber, upoa whom he also
served process.
In the absence of Judge Bolton, Judge Foote
heard the case; and the matter came on for
hearing Yesterday morning. The counsel for
the step father, who with the mother and child
were present made q motion to dismiss the
proceeding for want of jurisdiction, on the
ground that the party who it was alleged de-
tanned the child, and the child, were residents
of the county Of Geauga, where they were
served with the process, that being out of this
Judicial district.
The argument was somewhat elaborate, and
IN favor of the motion, the case of ex-parte
Bessie Eyerts was cited, weekly Law Gazette,
D. 4O9,) which arose before Judge GhOlson, OF
the Superior Court of Cincinnati.
No other case was referred to, and Ii was con-
ceded that the question had not befdre been
made in this section of tb9 State.
Judge Foote remarked, that when the matter
was first called to his attention he thought the
motion not predicated on sufficient legal ground
but that the more he thought of it, the more he
was impressed that it must prevail. That un
doubtedly writ issued by the Supreme Court
and perhaps by District Court, would run
through the State He thought Jurisdiction
of the Common Pleas must be limited to its OWL
proper district. That he could not hold thai
be could allow a writ to be issued to the county
of Geauga, out of his district, to bring before
him man charged with crime there, and the
statute made no difference between person de.
tained under process, and one detained without
That the section of the statute relied upon by
the applicant, had not reference to the jurisdIc
ton of the Court, but to the service of the writ
when properly issued
The motion must prevail Proceedings dis
missed for want of jurisdiction.
H. Griswold and L. j. Rider for Applicant.
S. B. Axtel and A G. Riddle for Leland.