Memphis daily appeal. [volume] (Memphis, Tenn.) 1847-1886, 1869-01-16
THE SCHOOL. E-zgL HEEREss.
East Day Of the ELcElnIey Ea-
beas Corpus Case.
9IoFe Interesting Features og the
Case.

From the Louisville CouIier-JOurnal IAh.l
The McKiul ~ habess corpus case in
which is i1v0 we'd the oUs ody of + J
LYON Mckinley, daughter Of Or Samuel
Mckinley, now pupil in S. Crsuiiur
Academy, "a Catholic school Of this ciiy
wss resumed ye- terday afternoon st
o'clock, before Judge Bruce.
Judge Iayl0r, counsel for the pet!-
toner, DR.. Mckinley, made sn elsb0rate
opening argument, urging strongly The
glt Of DR.. n Kjniey 70 the girl IS ner
fstheT, snd that ne sbon nave . voice
10 the msttsr II tie girl were to be COZ
signed 20 the care Of any person other
tnsn himself; that the respondent hsn
no righ 60 ask that the father surrender
her, or that shs be bound 20 any system
q theology contrary t. his wishes; that
the fssher'r ght 70 dsjerUine ia what
religion his chnd should be- brought ~
wss pre-6mj8ent; that the Sfiiiavit o.
JuCg7 H1Ee showed clearly that the
Keeping Of the girl from her fatheT Wse
through msrc mary motives; that the
effort 20 retain the girl had been made
with the view OF 81 curing her property
for the benefit OF the Catholic Church I;
tbat 81. UrsuliDe Academy could not
hold tba child a. lien because her
father had not paid her tuition. He al
legged the respondent had endesvOred 70
show that DR. Mckinley was not the
father of the child, without being able
10 prove It. He a-kgd, st least, thst
sonia suitabls person be given the Gus
tody 81 the girl that she might have thr
benefit OF thGss social relations which
could not be enjoyed In "a educational
institution.
Judge J-H Brown followed Judge Tey-
Ior, but spoke very brisfy. II said ius
proof in the case might be such Bs 20
lead 10 withdrawing the child from heE
father. snd should this occur, be desired
chat the court would hold up the matter
FOR time r. was satisfied though,
that Dr.. Mckinley wss not So much sn
inebriste as some Of the testimony had
shown.
Judge Burnett, counsel for respondent,
replied, making the closing argument.
h said tbsc perhaps ss early IS the first
Of july last correspondence hEd been
commenced between Dr.. Mckinley and
the respondent; that then for the first
time inquiry hsd bssa msds az 70 VINO
DE- Mckinney was; that hon FOR the
first time iHEiiuE- and iuu.lst we're
had t5ag Dr. Mckinley was not the Dr.
Mckinley he bad n represented himself 70
be. On the 25th OF August last, WheB
proceedings were commenced, az snsE er
had been hastily GTaWG IN which az
Opinion Wss given that Mckinley wss
bot the father 0f the child. The amended
response sjmllg asked that respondent
be allowed the custody o. tHs child ulii
some Guly authorized guardian should be
60 take care II her, and did not
mske the issus that Dr. Mckinley gss
haF father Ibis Egs sufficient in Itself
o. contradict the imuTassi1u thar re-
spoLdsnt set q lien up0g the chilJ 30 Sc
cure the payment Of the tuition. Toy
we're satisfied the father vas bsd msU,
and that h8 had been the husband Of five
OF six wivzE. Taa iittie child had been
lef. Witbru- a fF.euH ia the wOilf- de-
serted by her father, the only iE G!TICusi
to whom she had 3 right o. look for sup
port ard pro eCtion. She hEd ben
cunG in rags, and u the IL st dastgut-
condition. When the father recovered
from 81 attack # dsiiiigu tremeUs, be
bad found bis child az o jet OF PA lie
,haTiJv. His e-aEiJy lad been usr-
strOus. He had used q 01VE.ts upon ais
.irlle daughter, and beat her 80 severely
as 10 COZ nae her 70 ber Bad for more
-hau e week. He had beaten her over
the head Witu her shaa 81 jsat f1T weeks
ler hair oru.i E0E be cgmhet. Es had
b sbauG0ued bis children for weeks at 6
tine, auG his hOusssee yar had sold her
bed clothing % support them. al ihe
respondent asked was THAI ile gill be
committed o. respond ultIl her rala-
tive, Mrs. Amanda S1stfsr (oi Lau'si-
anal saoul sppssT, srt lhst thaD, Il ,hs
court be sati-fie that Mr.. Shsifer is the
proper per-Ou 90 take the gBIld, the gil
se placed Ia her charge
At the e,ncusiOn OF Judge Burnetts
srE Umeut. tls case was gwen 20 tue
Court. Judge Bruce said be would make
nor order until Ee could hold g private
with the child, rec 'mya1jsd
by the counsel on both ZiCes. II 8 Honor
Jnen TejireJ With the atgotusgs sld tas
ch d, sud in shout ten minutes returned
suG announced that ths GTazr 10 Tie case
would Lot be msas Ultii this morning 81
hal'-ps-t Line O'CiCcs; Tnereupon the
Court adj j7urHsd.
The re5ui- 81 the interview with the
girl Vss, 50 lzg - we could learn, tAs-
she expressed preferences to fsmsia 81
IT. UT-uiina Academy, having been
trested with great kindness a. ths iasti-
tuition.
Since the comm 2nc ament OF proceed
inCs il this case, the Gssth Of Col. VI p
rls1n, o. Tnib1iezux Psrish, Louisiana,
hss occurred, s-d the property 70 which
Ml-s Mckinley Is her, s8d which hsd
been left bg her mother VII, in c0nge-
queues OF his desth, be turnsd over &c
the person who may be selected as her
guardian The property cons sts OF lands
in L9uislsns, and Is said to bs worth
million 0g more.
FEREREs WE'LL CAGE