The morning star and Catholic messenger. [volume] (New Orleans [La.]) 1868-1881, 1873-06-22
Has Catholic Father any Status in Court .

This question may be answered in the mega
tive if Judge Fancher's late decision be taken
as legal. The New York Tablet of May 31st
tells the story in this wise:
A case was brought up before the Learn ed
judge" on Thursday last, in one of the new
York courts. father, Patrick Small, applied
for n writ of hubeas corpus on the person of his
child. Mary Elizabeth Small, aged thirteen
years, who was forcibly detained against his
will and against her own i'll institution
known as st. Barnabas' Home. a branch of tho
Protestant Episcopal City Mission Society. 1t
appears, on the sworn affidavit of the father and
of others, that the mother of the girl has been
an habitual drunkard, and that he had sought
to reclaim her in vain. AS the report of the
Herald puts it: ain n drunken fiji she enticed
the girl away from home; it was some time
before he could ascertain where she had taken
her." After q time he discovered that she had
taken her to the st. Barnabas' II ,me. The fool
ish man in his innocence went to the st. Barna-
bas Home. OF course that saintly institution
knew nothing whatever about bis child, and
SO informed him. After such a rebuff the man
was idiotc enough to apply to the law, and SO
the case came into court to be pronounced
upon by this "second Daniel "-otherwise
Fancher. 1t appeared in evidence that the
sanity institution, st. Barnabas' Home, had
told the father lie, for it produced the child
under the confding care of a clergyman "pro-
Tossing to represent the st. Barnabas' Home. /"
This fact might have warned an ordinary
judge that the Home in question was not like
ly to stick at trihe. But Fanchsr is not an
ordinary judge. The father of the child is n
Catholic, and had the barefaced impudence to
object to his girl being stolen away from him
without his knowledge consent, and sub
jected to Protestant influences, when, as
shown, he can amply provide for her he
does for his other children. To an ordinary
judge this might have seemed only natural,
but again, Fancher is not ordinary judge.
1t is well to bear this fact in mind, or the de-
cision is likely to startle the reader. The
statement was made by the clergyman that
the mother of the child brought her to
the institution, aud requested that good
place be found for her. In conformity with
this request she had been placed with a family
named Stevens, and at the time of the service
of the writ was living with this family"
Such are the facts Of the case. Now for the
decision of tho upright judge:
Is the child we'll taken care of where she
is 7" asked Judge Fancher.
"She 10 very kindly cared for" answered
the clergyman. "She could not possibly have
q better hRme."
"I will give no consideration, pursued the
Judge, I" to the question of the child's father
being Catholic and she under Protestant in
fence. The father can see the child, but he
must not interfere with her. The writ is dis
missed"
In its subsequent issue, that of June eth, the
Tablet says:
In last weeks Tablet it was predicted that
the decision of the gentleman above named
in the case Of the child Small, who was forci-