The Union and journal. [volume] (Biddeford, Me.) 1858-1882, 1865-10-27
sHoREY Va, sHoREY.

Mn. EprroR :-Believiug. rs do, that news
paper Is far from at forum for the litigation 0
any cause, either before, pending, or after adjud.
ication by the Supreme Judicial Court, nor yet
the proper vehicle Tor partiIan access TO the popr-
lar ear for arguments Of counsel, I am exceeding
ly unwilling to solicit place therein for any men.
ton Of any action n law. But, inasmuch q, one
paper In the county, In June last gave the public
some half column Ut couusel's theory" though
not one word of fact ELECTED by evidence, In the
case of Shorey VS.. Shorey this perjury Of proof,
yet perfect argosy OF argument-this utter sierl-
ity OF fact 30 plentifully waiered by alarge draft
on imagnation-to wit: about one half column
strongly suggestive OF Addison's Illustration OF
the poverty OF HE tongue AMI the wealth ot his
pen, when he said, 81 have not In my pocket six.
pence, ready money. but can draw for q thous
and pounds; and inasmueh as this weeks issue
OF both county papers contain q report OF an
hearing upon petition OF Lucy shorey VI. al.
bn Sh0rey, which by o suppression OF by fsr the
greater part Of the facts (Oi course do not think
designedly. but by mistake), without correction
might misleal simple justice requires STATE.
ment Of. not argument w!th'nt facts, but iac,s
without argument and these too not the facts In
the case. but merely the facts of the hearing. Ihe
Court has determined the facts in the case anu
II the public desires To have any Of the facts VI
the hearing, we desire il should have all.
In her petition, afier the recital of sundry ai'
legel facts, the main ones being that, she Us
suitable person to have the care and custody VI
the child, aud that, "ssd Albra was mol = ,ai'a.
bic person to have the charge aud education OF
the child the prayer OF the Petitioner was as
follows, viz: "Wherefore your memorialist peti-
tons this Court to make such further orier rs
shall be necessary To carry into effect the atore-
said decree, relating 10 the visits ot her daughier
to her, aud upon Information to this Court that
she Is q suitable person to have the care and Gus.
tody Of her said minor child, she prays this Court
to make further order that the custody OF said
child be given to her the said Lucy j. shorey
thus praying for two DEGREES one "further OF.
der" the other an entire subversion aud reversal
Of the original decree, to wit "that the custody
Of said child be given to her." In resistance TO
these two prayers alone, upon thess TWO aiiegcd
facts only, could the Respondent take issue. lie
therefore did appear ut the hearing, fully pre-
pared to coutrovert and di.prove any and oil rs.
serted facts upon which q decree granting poth or
either said prayers could be founded, and especial
ly to controvert aud disprove the Two main alleged
facts above mentioned. The Petitioner offered no
evidence upon either Of these alleged facts hence
there was nothing Cordm JUDGE tn be contro-
yerted. But the Petitioner did claim, what the
Respondent fully admitted. to wit: that he hal
declined compliance with the request OF the feti.
tionei-such request having been In hs Judgment
unreasonable. The Court did iiiicr with him 10
mat Judgment, OUT uech'eu 'h' ",'
an inclination to burden the Respondent In the
matter Of costs was apparent" he declined to nj.
low tree costs to- the Petitioner, aud did allow part
costs only. The closing oi the decree Is AZ FOL.
lows, viz "Np evidence is offered upon the aver
ment In this petition that the child Is not In proper
hands, and the custody Of the child Is con',nueI
to the father under the limitation OF the Original
decree" Nc prayer In the petition was granted
The petition was not sustained but on the con-
trary the original decree was affirmed.
This much, In simple justice to the truth anu
'thc whole truth"
Messrs. Tapley & Hubbard appeared for the Pt
ti,ionci-and for the Respondent,
Y'r ob't scry't o. Z. fE.ToS.
South Berwick, Oct. 20, 1865.