The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1867-08-24

jurisdiction over every GUARDIAN however appointed,
he sSsrosss ~ ~ vii Is as much under lie supern
iendsDcs and contps Of hs Court Of chaneey ana Of
q: q y ao e Sy
1897 To Abe same effect Shaiswooqs no'e 20 BLACK
stones Com. 4s2; story's Equity Jur, section Ss9,
drsws / Id 700 In the case of Crumb The chsncslor
declared that 1.-THE court could change, o. dis
cns The guardian whether 10 % enS S 4 Nv
latter the court has required very special reason:
for Interference" The aame conclusion on vas stated
coz. a Barb H. iss BE there stated that .Ths id
rsdicton 10 the testamentary gusroans ana
guardians appointed by the surrogate a. v over guaso
was the decision in the case Of Townsend, va
Kendall q Minnesota, n2) The guardian Is
authority this court has The power Of removing trus
tees. And can be done IN one case, no objection
would seem 70 exist 70 tho exercise o. the an.non
Nor.on 5sed. Isl Upon authority therefore . ven
guardians be deemed 10 be veisd 10 this court IS
court of equity Whether the power should % exer
csed ~ this Gaze = he mex. question ar'ang ,ol con-
ness aud hs idossi!cG ars Iusaac:eut Q render HIN
com3een e %snsss the altar. Of e .sgs e. sss.'s
f sS from osn s ssS esissssSs sSSs &.
commonly deemed sufficient reasons FOR removing Ine
Ter vs. Cooper Paige BAY And 10 the duty Of this
court not 70 allow That TO be subjected 10 the risks BE-
comes exposed 70 under such circumstance wnCn 20
orly establishes the factthat the guardian 10 occasion
ally found intoxicated and M in the habit and practce
OF visiting tipping places and OF assocating ana drink
ing with the persons found 10 assemble there as little
doubt will appear TO exist concerning the proprey OF
lie guardian IN this case as there Of the existence
OF the power itself But II that power s to DO used,
both parties differ as to the extent 70 wblcn 70 70 oe
applied the plaintiff c0ntendng that her marriage pas
superseded guardianship altogether and the defend.
ant that no formal application has been presented for
his removal guardian OF the boy Joseph l. Gerety,
who is made de- AS to the rst objection, there
but little controversy that by The common law
the marriage Of female ward either Of itself superseded
guardianship far contributed TO the production
OF that result TO render only formal order necessary
for tha. purpose q Kent's Com. 232) BY that law
tie custody Of the female ward but be also became
vested with title to her personal property and chooses
10 action and the rents ana pron.s o. ncr aea
guardian authority over the person or properly OF the
by tho guardian the MARRIAGE efectualy superseded
that authority After marriage therefore, tho powers
OF tho guardian gone the female ward and her
elects But tina. law in modern times has undergone
becomes es Vested With The properly either real Or
personal, OF the wife; but that remains her sole
aud separate property, The same as though
she continued q single female notwithstanding her mar
far tho preservation and Of her property
,pasSss q Ssrs s s M Sss ss q
Tiers was Under the previous law where the ward
NAMED sole and unmarried. The guardianship Of the
person Of tho wife has not been changed but to her
separate properly must still extend 70 the period OF
her actual majority These different kinds Of guardian.
snip are not 60 blended together as 10 render The guar
danship Of the properly dependent upon guardianship
OF the poison for the court may, in ITS discretion ap.
point person guardian Of toe person and another
uartan OF the estate like manner IN of idiots
lnnaIics there may be committee or the person
aud another OF the estate u Kcnts Com, 1851 Upon
the removal 0: the defendant as guardian therefore,
suitable and competent person should be appointed as
o. Inc =, %
manner as TO demand as rcof the removal Of the de-
fopdant as guardian OF the boy James l. Gerety. But
s necessary that applications OF this nature should
DO so formally made as 10 DO presented BY suit
/, may be done by pc,.ion which may b. pre-.
r. snas or relatives and mere stranger, said may
any time set the machinery OF the court IL motion
Cor ma Srow Ss IL S
pro The boy 10 made ward Of the court BY the
plaintiffs action and be w pade Defendant escaYse be
the action as party plaintiff. His guardian ad i,.em
has died the usual answer submitting his ghts 70 the
have been brough. before the court and there is greater
necessity the removal OF the guardian 10 him
than 20 the plaintiff for DO sal. remains subject % the
his habits the mind and morals Of the boy liable
become contaminated and vitated and his patTimony
sent IN pursuit Of his guardian to tipping places as he
testified be had becn without serousy endangerins his
morals Ihe court has possession Of the whole case in
competent 70 deal GU, the full measure Of justice
which demands - though formal petition
had been presented his behalf tor that purpose
the guardian as him well as the plaintin must,
therefore DO removed The defendant appears have
rcsisted the effort him In good faith and
without reason regarded himself as having been selected
as be was and with al h faults, BY the voluntary
OF the tesato % the guardian Of his children. The
testator have entertained high estimate OF
fitness the relation which be assigned TO him. II
conclusions were formed with knowledge Of the
defendants circumstances habits and competency, as
there s some reason for believing they were the de-
fendant had plausible grounds for entertaining the
opinon: for IL il NO fault in human nature that auv
man is inclined 10 upderyaue himself Although he
must be removed he must be reimbursed for the
pcuses he has been subjected 10 the defence Of this
action, provided, however that the allowance In this
respect be restricted within reasonable bounds It
should not be Of such nature to offer a reward
encouraging guardians and trustees 10 contumacious
resistance Of proceedings brought their removal on
proper grOunds This allowance for the purpose of
avoiding further and unnecessary litigation, remains
ewhiecs - 10 its payment 10 any future direction
this cosR may deem proper 10 mxxS in the
case seEercnce must be ordered take
and state the accounts OF the defendant and 70 ascertain
and report . suitable guardian OF the Of
the plaintiff aud OF the person and estate the deeud-
ant Jeeeph L. Gerey, ard tns efcndant must deliver
over 70 sucn guardian under oath nil the ELECTS
and money his hands belonging these naats, after
deductlng his fees thcefron and the expenses to be
defence in this action. What that amount shall be- sub
ject the qualification already stated, will determine
after examining the Suggestions OF the counsel for the
PARTIES on that subject before subscribing he decision
containing the facts and conclusions Of found That
however can be prepared from the disposition Of The
case made by this opinion The costs aud counsel fees
Of the plaintiff must be paid generally by the property
and estate OF these warts The court finds the defend
ant, George Mcdonald without any pecun.ary respo
s,bility and Is insolsent. By OF the want OF
proper habits Of business and education "a incompe-
tent manage guardian the affairs Of estate Of
the plaintiff and Of the defendant Joseph L. Gerety
said George Mcdonald Is occasionally found
intoxicated; he Is In tae habit aud practice Of
visiting tipping places and OF sssocating and
drinking with the persons assembled there he is an un-
A. improper and incompetent, person to be gsardan Of
tue estate OF the plaintiff or OF the person and estate OF
the defendant Joseph L. Gcreiy that the property OF
tho plaintiff and Of the defendant Joseph l.. Gercty,
would be endangered by leaving the the hands
OF said Mcdonald the morals and habits OF said Joseph
l. Gerety would be exposed 20 serious danger by con.
tinuancc OF the personal control and custody OF said
Mcdonald over said Joseph L. Gerety And the court
further hnds as matter OF law, that the plaintiff 70
titled TO judgment declaring that the guardianship OF the
person OF the plaintiff under the last VIII OF her late
father was superseded her marriage with John
Foley In the complaint stated and also that said George
Mcdonald be removed from the ONCE Of guardian OF the
estate OF the Plaintiff that he ought 10 be removed like
wise from the Office OF guardian OF the person and estate