Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1861-11-08

humDld-
TIE BARNEY CASE BEFORE THE ORPHANS
CouRT, JuDsE PURcELL.-At the meeting Of the
court Yesterday Mr. Blount appeared as additional
ledge Purcell said be bad received a letter from
Mrs Rothwell, In which that lady states that she
sometime since relnquished all her rights as the
nearest relative OF Mrs Barney, deceased, In favor
Of Lieut. Barney, hut she now renounces that act.
She names Mn. Dixon (wife Of the CoIlector) In
the same connection.
the cousin Of the deceased Mrs Barney, and Mr..
De krent 10 the nearest male relative In this
fine petition, Of Mr.. De Krant in thi, ca,e-,he
frst offered I'd October, 1850, and the second 7th
September, IS5l-and Lieut. Barney's response 70
said pettions-the FIRST nled November LIST, 1850,
and the second September lith, 1s6l-were read
Mr.. FendaH In his opening address said that It
was now more than wear since Mr. De Kraft ap-
piled to the court TO have guardian appointed
Tor the children Of Mrs. Barney, deeming the
father (Lieut Barney an improper person 70 have
The custody Of them. The case had been fraught
with incidents disagreeable to some Of those con-
nected with It. He said Mr.. De Kraft does not ask
the guardianship Of the children for himself-he
only asks that proper person be appointed by the
Court
Mr.. FcndaI then toek up the Iowa decree of
divorce, and said that Mrs. Barney, In her petit
ton to the court which granted that divorce
prayed the court to interfere for her children
The court granted her prayer, and by that decree
them from MIR. Barney by reason Of his acts. 1t
did not depend on her death-the children were
taken from his direction and control Mr.. F. ad =
mitted tsat subsequent changes may be made BY
but until such changes are made Mr.. Barney
stands on the same footing any stranger. His
rights as natural guardian have been taken
away.
In regard to what had been said Of no notice Of
the suit for divorce In Iowa having been served
on Mr.. Barney, Mr.. Fendsll argued that by the
Ham ~ II 81,
sary. Notices may be PERSONAL or constructive
by publication or sending notice to the party's
last place Of resldence-and there is no proof here
that Mr.. Barney was net notified. The court there
has said be did have notice, and has said Mrs
Barney did reside there proper time, by granting
the divorce. That divorce was binding In other
states, as by the Constitution the laws Of one
State have full force and credit in the several
States. IL the decree Of a court Is to be called In
question, there would be no end TO litigation
You have no right to go behind the record, or to
Inquire IL things were done properly, or the pro-
visions Of the law complied with.
Mf. Fendall then spoke Of the appeal pending
in Iowa, and said the law required an appeal to
be taken within one year, and notice given to the
party or their attorney. No such notice had been
given In this case, by publication or otherwise
He then argued that the Court OF Chancery has
the right to set aside a natural guardian when the
conduct Of such guardian renders such course
necessary.
The Court desired counsel to read from the
laws Of Maryland, az to whether jurisd ction Is
given to the Orphans Court or the Court Of Chan
Gerry In cases like the present
Mr.. Davidge said he did not think there had
ever been case In Maryland like this attempt to
set aside a parent. The Court has no discretion
a. to the absolute legal Of parent to be the
guardian Of his children-the law confirms the
decree Of nature
The Court said the parent might be an i'm.
Mr. Davidge said he would contend, at the
proper time that no court except Court Of Chan
cere has right to interfere between father and
children.
Mr. FSndall said this Court had Jurisdiction az
the case 30 far as Mr.. Barney was concerned vas
edJudlcated and determined (by the Iowa court).
The Court Of Chancery can bar the parent from
the custody OF his children, II his conduct is hurt
Iul to their morals pfeiudcial to their interests
The laws OF Maryland give this 1.-THE Orphans,)
Court power 70 appoint guardians.
Mr.. Fendall then proceeded to review the evil
aence-taking up, first, Mr.. Linton's, who knew
Mr.. Bradlsy's, and then Chssey's: Dr. e Tucker cl
Blake only knew Mr.. Barney three months in
Paris, and at that time he was on his good beha.
vtor, trying 10 get restored 10 the NAVY
Mr.. Dayidge said DR.. Rlake,s acquaintance
With MI Barney was the year before the action
Of the retiring board
Mr.. Fendsl1 said that the witnesses who ts,,i
hed TO the temperate habits Of the contestant were
mere casual acQuaintances DR. Johnson saws we
all know what his habits were previous to his de-
parture for Paris, but in the last Is months they
have changed; and yet Mr.. Winder would not
even suspect him Of being intern perate While
This suit Is pending before your honor for a wear
or more past, he reforms his habits to get the Gus
todV OF these children. IL has been proved here
that be acts in an immoral, outrageous and brutal
manner towards them when be is intoxicated
Imputanons were thrown on Mr.. Linton and Mr..
Bradley that, knowing these things, they'did not
appeal to the law; but when Mr.. De Krafft with
ell these facts before him. interferes for the chill
dren, II 10 stigmatlZed, both In court and ont of
court, as the or'ciOus interference Of strangers.
He then passed 10 the evidence Of Alexandrine
ana said 10 was so years since Prince Bonaparte
(Jerome) was here, and since that time Mrs. Bar
ney ecknowledses she has spoken but little
french-may abe not have misunderstood AleXan-
dnaeI who does not go there Voluntarily they
send for her, TO try to ind about this immoral
conduct which she testihes to here, directly and
PointedlY, saying she did see Il. An act 30 base,
be (Ar. + hardly knew how to find words to
sttgmatize IL He didn't know how any human
being could descend 20 low. II parents were
false TO their position and false to their duty the
custody Of their children should be taben from
them. MT Ramsay testifes that Mr.. barney was
Intoxicated since his return from Paris; and yet
MI Winder seems to consider Ii perfectly out
rageous TO suggest such a thing. All the witnesses
except Mr. B Is immediate family testify to his
habits Of intoxication, and DIR. Johnson said his
habits Of dissi patton.
The counsel In this case say to Chasey, when he
10 examined here At the instance Of the Court
about the chastisement, The does not volunteer to
testify) the counsel tell him he hss not learnt his
part well, and say they want nothing more Of
him. There was not one person who has taken
any interest In the case, in opposition to the posi-
attacked and vilined In the court outside Of it,
MT Davidge asked who villined him (Mr F)
MI Fendah said 1t had been done, il was not
necessary 70 say BY who. IL was not by the gen.
tleman. He then said he unde rstood that EDDY
was to have been examined by the other side liz
there was any witness who could elighten the
court az 70 his fathers conduct IL was this boy
Why did they not examine him,
Mr. Davidge asked why the other side did not
examine him.
Mr. FendaIl said 1t was because he wa, under
the influence Of the contestant IL was In evil
dence here that Mr.. Barney len Paris and did not
take the children with him; he leaves them there
At boarding school, and don'tgo near them; keeps
away but when whoever gets the children gets
the control Of the property, he takes q new and
deep interest In them. This too after leaving
them there year and Directing 10 money being
sent for their support.
Mr. Fendall then briefly reviewed the evidence
Of Mr.. Mcguire and Mr.. Barney's mother and sis
Gers.
He then went on 10 say, that when evidence
wa offered, st the beginning Of the case, Of Mr..
Barneyb bad conduct towards his wife, Il was
ruled out and now. AFTER the evidence had been
closed the contestant, for some reasons cane here