The Wheeling daily intelligencer. [volume] (Wheeling, W. Va.) 1865-1903, 1870-02-28
DISPUTED OWNERSHIP OF 4
BOY.
The Hopkins-Archcr ITabcas Corpus
Case.

The 10pR1nSsAfchcf haDeuH corpus
Case.
JAMES ARCHER, Of Hancock county
guardian StSIphN n FI&khlAs aIghild
Aisea by him Fo4 sS itInit BiAs bsa
sded'by thS boys Tithef III IT'D 'fk'sscs
sion. Tho suit was brought in Hancock
county, anil there dismissed by Judge
MELVIN A new writ was issued in this
county, and the case heard before Judge
IIoKE, Of Hampshire, Circuit temporarily
Occupying lhs iGensh. TleDhe4ihg IYat
concluded Saturday night Tic case lIas
excited much interest in Hancock and
Brooke, nd'prSsenB Bins intttesthtgfca
lures. The history Of It ~, Developed on
the trial, appears 70 Enthusiastically this
George G. Hopkins, the father Of the
boy, married Sarah 'CtlwtOrd sometime in
the year 1854. She was the daughter Of
Che late John Crawford, Of Hancock coun'
", who died in 1850, u few weeks before
tic death of his said daughter, Sarah Hop
kins. BY his last will he gave her II farm
of two hundred acres ip Hancock county
and charged Oh i ~ Rgacypf $500 inIta-
FOR Of Ms daughter ShSan,' now the wife
of the respondent, James Archer.
The marriage Of Hopkins with SlTall
was against the wishes Of, all her near
relatives, and although she had never
complained Of Ill treatment ftOmihcr hus'
band, her relatives were satisfied that she
WIS greatly disappointed in her marriage
and subjected 10 great hdrlslis.
On her death SONG eleven years age
ShrIh LEFT Surviving 81 Her but one
child, John G. Hopkins, the subject
Of this controversy. This child was adopt.
cd by his uncle, James Archer, who was
appointed hisf guardian. His father last
May procured j writ Of bG6%S p9'PWi
against MI. Archer, rctufnablc' to the Cir.
cult Court Of Hancock, and filed his pcti.
ton claiming the custody Of IBIS son, and
alleging that Archer WIS .dGtdihihg him
wrOngfllly. On the return dizzy Of the
writ, Archer ipfoducel tho HOYltn the
Court with tho causes Of Ills detention,
which are rs follows: Thai no - the guar
dian Of tic boy, appointed by tho Record;
or Of Hancock county; that tho boys
mother on her death bed, and with the
consent of Hopkins, gavc the child 10 It's
kfandmot6hf IQrHwt0fll ind 10 h6r Sister,
.SuSan rd&idrd, (HoW tho wife OkAFOlier);
that they were TO raise tho boy and take
care Of him, tho boy, being, ut that time
about four yeafsa6R agG; TINT PURSUANT
To this arrangement they did Nke
charge Of.IHI6 hoy, ~ and kept him
for four or five years constantly
until hisaiatherD married. h second tinlG,
which was about the year 1868; that the
father then took the boy, TO his homo q
few weeks in Paris, Pa, then returned
him, he md his wife having moved from
Paris to Cleveland. When there he again
sent for the boy and kept him low
weeks, then LEFT lliswilc anil boy in CleYe-
land and went TO Montana, leaving but
thirty dollars with his wife. His wife
shortly attgrt01k the bOYtO NawI fprk
Statefp ttehohle hf alcr in6llleE Mo WAS
u poor old woman; that when there II
short time their poverty was such that she
wrote .tD,AtchGr tDiGonle and, takalthG
boy, the ththcr writing to Archer from the
plains 10 do, the Pamp thing and 20 take
charge aud cure Of tho boy which
Archer promptly, did, This, was In the
Summer Of 1884, and tic boy has re.
manned with Archer. ever since, except
FA66dt two iEe6lIs last April, when his
father by stealth md fraud took the boy 10
The home Of his grandfather Hopkins III
Ohio. That the vito Of Archer formed 0
maternal att Clpnenb tOythGG child, apl the
Sind StihSl htta&lTiett t0his Mife;, llAt
liz lttthcf abandoned lhnI for Sb"ldag u
time that tho boy Ind no love for him ;
that ArChCr's home was all the, hoy could
lesirc-he having no children OF his own
and having quttGA AHge ostRLe that Hop
Eins had no homo, &6S' pGiSuing II prrca.
rious business, ,trnveling constantly, was
rccrcant 10 liS present wife, was an unfit
man to have the care Of said 10y, md was
immoral and vulgar in his habits
On the hearing Of the cause Hopkins
produced several witnesses, whose tCsti.
mOny gave him good position M 10
hQhnraQtGFguR y OthP year 1854 when he
liliScd I'm ,ftlmub& county and hdlSAGlIt;
PFtit tI,ty EhewbAtAnte ofEihi SiRc6 that
time, and nothing against him. lie also
lINl tho dNp0SitlOps Of several witnesses,
wh6'livc IN GleTGihhd men Of business,
who sustain Hopkins us u correct man hi
ItiS business connections, but know scarce.
IL anything OFliIn socially.
Archer In support Of Lis side, hal p
number OfwitnessCs who proved that the
Iny was rs well taken CAtG Of NJ flle were
his own son; that he was carefully school
c(l, both AtthC public school and Sunday
school; that he regularly attended Church
on the Sabbath; that Ills religious training
was daily looked 10 both by him
ielfsRhd sic; and TINT he had every
attention and comfort hC could wish;
that Archer intended The boy to bg