Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1862-04-02

addressed
publican, partially in reply to statement pub
iished In that paper on February 26th:
COMMUNICATES.
Judge PsresH a trsspasse, IN the Barney Case
The decree Of divorce Of Iotca ga nsAfty, net
roifabIs, Dat simply roid-aH persons eoscsrssd
~ executing sSek jxdEmsnts or sentsaess ar,
eeSsfdered ~ Iac as respasssys "-Elliou VS..
Piersol, Curtis Sup. Ct. Rep, Vol. VII, PIP.
have delayed thus long TO notice the erroneous
version received by your reporter, and published
In your paper Of the 10Th ultimo, of the proceed.
ings before Judge Merrick, on the writ Of kabsas
me 70 produce Immediately before him the bodies
Of my two sons, In order 10 verify my own i'm
Pressions Of those proceedings, by submitting the
Perusal Of that version to my counsel and also to
Judge Merrick himself, to sustain the following
statement In the course Of Judge Merick's re-
marks on the occasion Of the proceedings, he init
mated that the Intervention OF the writ Of habsas
corpus arose nom the defect on the part of the
Orphans Court, In not carrying out is own de-
cision, by refusing 20 give an order on the mar.
shai to surrender the custody Of the children to
discfaimed 70 me that be took occasion to paw a
high compliment TO Judge Purcell, personally
on the selection Of Dr.. Harvey Lindsey, or re.
mark that "nc better man could have been select
ed; which remark am led to attribute to the
fertile Imagination Of your reporters informef.
The whit OF Aabsas eoyPxs was issued, sup
pose, on the assumption Of the validity Of Judge
Ss S,cs guardian 70
ratily by fseossstsstly osd psrststsstiy refusing
10 grant an order on the Marshal TO surfender the
children to the custody Of said guardian, took
In custody my elder boy, with the intention Of
doing the same with all my children, In order
TO force further sction pro o. on the decision
of Judge Purcell, and 10 locate the whole respon.
sibilify Of that decision.
II must be remembered that Judge Purcell,s
decision, In appointing q guardian, 10 made to
RELY wholly on the assumption Of the validity Of
the Iowa divorce, behind which he could not 70,
he accepted it a. valid, N could only be set aside
by court having appellate Jurisdiction. In the
words Of Judge Pufcell's ceoision, " II the said
court Of Iowa erred, this Court has no power 10
give him, the said samuel Chase Barney redress.
That the remedy IL before another tribunal, the
regular Appellate Court. The above decree can
not be impeached of inquired into cclaterally by
this Court according 10 the authorities which are
binding upon IL, and that II Is binding also upon
the said samuel G. Barney until reversed"
To sustain this opinion Judge Purcell quotes
some half dozen authorities, among which was
particularly happy 70 notice there no decison
OF the v. y. supreme Court cited; hence it oc-
Cured 70 me not 70 bother my able and amiable
counsel with my crude ideas, but 70 endeavos my.
self TO ind some authorities, particularly Of the
highest tribunal OF the land, &c reverse the de-
cision rendered by the Orphans Court. And
although 90 man who II his own LAWYER has
fool for CLIENT" vet we all know that law 10
founded upoa common sense; ara on that solid
foundstion 10 occurred 10 me that NO two con rts
Of dinessnt jurisdictions could each exercise ~.