The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1868-07-11
BROOKL YIN CITY.
SUPREME COUaT-SpeC.Al TERM.
The Onks-Steinwuy Cause.-The Application
Of Mother TO Secure the Custody Of Her
Children.

The Onks-Steinwuy Case-Tisc Application
of a Mother TO Secure the Custody Of Iiel
Children.
Before Judge Gilbert.
Pursuant to adjournment the case Of Mrs. Ernes
tine Oaks, widow of the late Henry Steinway,
wrought to recover the custody OF her children. who
are detained in Brunswick, Germany, as set forth
IN her anidavi against her wishes, by lie direction
Oh william Steinway, her brother-in-law and execu-
tor, was called In the Supreme Court, Circuit before
Judge Gilbert, yesterday morning.
Mrs. Seigler, sister OF Mrs. william Stelnway was
called to the witness stand, and testified that she
had known Mrs. Oaks both since and before the
death OF her former husband, Henry Steinway; had
been In the habit OF visiting her at Staten Island
previous to her gong to Europe Mrs. Oaks relations
with the family at that time were OF o friendly char
acter; had heard Mrs. Stenway speak Of her In
tention Of visiting Europe before her husband died
she had often said that she could live nicer in
Europe on her money; she said that she wanted to
sell tue house William Steinway lived In before going
to Europe, and Theodore Stenway wrote 10 them 10
get HIM house; witness visited Brunswick, Ger
many in june 1866, aud there saw tile three children
OF the complainant, whom she testified were living
In tine house and were nicely cared for by Mr.. Koch
ana his wiei they were all neatly dressed and
Jacob Seigler, husband OF the last witness, cor
rob0rated this testimony
Mr.. Van Cotl, counsel for the respondent, then
Henry Steinway, ST., rs witness ana stated that he
desired To show what sums OF money were received
by MIS-. Henry Steinway, Jr., on her own and her
husbands account before leaving Tor Europe
Objection was raised To this showing by the cOun-
sci for Mrs. Oaks on the basis vi its rrelevancy TO
the question at issue-namely, the custody ol her
children.
Mr.. Van Colt stated that 1t was set forth in the
affidavit that the complainant mad been lnveigled
abroad without sufficient funds, and had been elt so
destitute III Germany that she compelled TO take
second cabin passage over TO this country. They
(the respOndents) wished TO show that she mad re-
ceived large sums and was IN advance Of her means
all the time; she was therefore, unit 10 be a guar
dian Of her children.
The Court sustained the objection to this point and
Mr.. Henry Steinway ST., was called to the stand and
examined through the agency Of an interpreter as to
the execution OF the Will OF his son, Henry Stenway
Jr., deceased.
The Court stated that the only question now was
IN regard to the custody OF the children. The
mother was entitled to their custody, but in the
opinion OF the court 1t had no power to compel Mr.
Steinway to return the children. The counsel Tor the
plaintiff asked to have the question settled as TO who
should have the custody anu the present I'M JUNCTION
as to restraining Mr.. Oaks from interfering with
the children dissolved. After some further discus
sion In reference to the law and the power OF the
court 10 interfere Judge Gilbert took the papers and
reserved his decision until Monday next