The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-07-26
THE HOWARD MISSION.

The Management Charged with Kid
napping-Thc Case Brought Before the
Supreme Court-Somc Curious Facts
Developed.
Maria Kane, girl thirteen years OF age, was left
several months since al orphan. Her uncle, Rufus
Kane, had charge OF her after her parents death
In the early part OF March last she induced to
enter the Howard Mission though what the precise
Inducements were does not yet appear. There was
CHARGE or KIDNAPPING,
which charge, 1t is only proper to say, is denied
An effort was made to find her, but as alleged, they
refused ut the Howard Mission to tell where she
was. Mr.. J. Nj. Sheehan was employed by the girls
uncle to take such legal steps to erect her
recovery as he deemed best in the
premises. He at once made application for
writ OF habeas corpus at Supreme Court, Cham
bers, which was granted. Instead of the girl being
produced in Court, however, the writ was demufred
to and counter demurrer followed, and in short
there was the usual amount ofegal twisting, subter
fuge and strategy. Mr. Sheehan continued his re-
searches and the legal fight. He ascertaned that
the girl Ind been given to Mr.. Humphreys ut Cold
Spring; or rather, when
DRIVEN TO THE WALL,
the other side finally acknowledged this fact In re-
turn TO the writ Mr. Sheehan trayersed this return
andth matter was yesterday again brought before
the Court the hearing coming before Judge Patt OF
tho Supreme Court Chambers. On the matte being
called mp M. Sheehan gave his views OF tie mis-
slon He SAID IL was gotten up by some piOls old
ladies and foolish gentlemen. He claimed that 1t
waSa
REGULAR KIDNAPPING INSTITUTION,
and that Young and tender girls were drawn within
its meshes for other than the best purposes. They
gave the alleged young girls to irresponsible par
ties, and IN OF the latter casting them alcof,
assumed no sort OF responsibility for their iltnre
care. The Judge cut him short in these statements
as not being pertinent to the motion, which was to
set aside the return 10 the writ. He replied that
these were not random statements but supported
by testimony from Mr.. I0Otle, the outdoor SCENT
OF the institution. He then read some OF the
latter's testimony from which we give the sub
Joined extract as q ample certainly or
CURIOUS TESTIMONY
- z. DO you know where she (iaria) Is nOwi A.
q. How long Humphreys to keep heri A.
During good behavior was as long as they agreed.
z. Did you make any, and, II SO, what arrange
ment Tor Maria provided she did not suit MIR.
Humphreys A. NJ. Sir.
q. Was she to be brought back to the Mission IL
she did not sut9 A. No, sir.
q. Was there no protection made for her pro-
vided Humphreys turned her in the street, A. No.
q. Had you any legal or moral responsibility
No, sir.
Mr.. Sheehan insisted that the evidence rad
fully cOrroborated his statements and upon this he
pressed his motion
In opposition, points were submitted wth,ut
comment, their tenor being general denial of he
sweeping allegations made by Mr.. Sheehan and
representing the institution as noble and praise
OF its inmates Us most Justly and rghteOusy cen
Quoted.
The Court took the papers, reserving its &C.
CslOn.