Orleans independent standard. [volume] (Irasburgh, Vt.) 1856-1871, 1860-09-21
Two Sides to the Story.


decision of Judge Bigelow in the case, of
the Supreme Judicial Court of Massa-
chuseits -
In the matter of Elizabeth z. Thorn
dixie, petitioner for acrit of habeGs cor
pus, Henry G. Rice respondent.-The
Court came il. at half-past nine, aceor-
ding to previous announcement, for the
purpose of disposing of the above-named
case.
BlGELow. il need not say that
this is very painful case, and one upon
which the Court would gladly have been
spared the necessity of forming an opin-
ion. But the Court has a duty in the
matter, which is to be performed without
regard to any sympathies that may ex-
ist toward one side or the other. The
rule of duty is prescribed by the statute,
and this alone the Court can regard.
The preliminary question of jurisdic-
ton having been disposed of (and may
say that upon maturer reflection | am
still more convinced that it was disposed
of rightly there are presented two main
questions for consideration -
! CD To whom shall the general Gus
tody of the child be given while he re-
mains in Massachusetts.
(2) IF such custody is given to the
father, will the court in the exercise of
a sound discretion so regulate it as to give
to the mother access to see the child, at
fixed intervals.
Upon the first question / can enter
tain no doubt. The burden of proof is
on the petitioner to show good cause why
> the custody of the child should be chang
> ed. Prinaa facte he is now in proper
custody. l can only decide upon the le-
gal evidence before me and by that the
. father is man of irreproachable char.
acter and habits. Nothing has beer
, shown-nothing was alleged-in regard
to his character or habits which renders
n
him unfit to have the charge of his child
Then the child is a boy, upwards o
nine years of age, bright and intelligen
to remarkable degree, beyond his years
and thus in a condition to require thu
care and training which it is presumed
father can render better than a mother
The general rule is this that femal
child,-both parents being in other re
spects equally entitled to hers to b
committed to the custody of the mothe
. as being better qualified and adapted t
!. train and instruct Ter in those point
: which will best develop the character c
woman, and fit her for her station an
duties in life; but boy on the othe
hand-especially if he has arrived at th
age when it is necessary for him to mir
gle with other boys and thus 90 somt
what into the world-needs that car
w control and discipline suited to his futur
i duties and life which father much be
ter than a mother can bestow, and tn;
II such child should be committed TO tt
father is, all other things being equal, e
sential to the child's welfare and happ
ness.
The evidence shows that this child b
ief been in the custody of his father for Il
les last four or FIVE months and that th
at care and discipline has been bestowed |
asst the father upon him.
1r. Then there is the agreement of Il
he mother. voluntarily entered into by he
of that the father should have his custod
as This is of no binding force upon t
ltic court as an agreement, but it is eviden
vas to show what the opinion of the moth
for was then, as to the fitness of the faith
ap- to have the custody.
tint The only ground on which the mo
'ur- err claims the custody is the refusal
MS the father to give her access to /
ad- child, at certain times according to |
eca- agreement between them. But this v
the done in good faith, from a sense of du
Eeil, 1t may have been mistaken sense
cit duty, but it was from no desire to be C
lev ell to the child, and in my opinion affo
en- no ground for ordering a change of
TO custody which is clearly for the good
S of the child
1t seems clear therefore that the Q
low eral custody should remain with the
'wn. Their.
N IN But the second and more interest
Lho question is whether in giving or cont
ices, ing this custody in the father, the c'
pro- in the exercise of its discretion to OF
the that the mother should from time to t
read have access to the child.
The In the first place, what is the ex
by of this enquiry? 1t is not as stated
EN- the counsel for the petitioner. It is
'eau- whether the mother shall during bis
IT, L