, 1873-01-12
Tho 'fhite Daughter Of Colored Woman
il Court Under Writ Of
Habeas Corpus.
History Of the Case, and Evidence
by Well-Known Citizens.
The Claim Of the Mother Refused in
Consequence Of the Unkind-
mesa Of the Step
Father.

has been up several times before Judge Booth,
WAS heard to-day before Judge Williams, Of the
Circuit Court.
John ~ Ella, OF Ella l. Parker, appeared for
the defendant, and l.. S. Hodges and Master in
Chancery CHASE for the mother Of Emma
Thompson, who caused tho writ to issue.
Several witnesses were examined on both
sides, aud dispositions taken in st. Louis wore
read.
The child was in court, accompanied by A1r.
Moore and his wife; tho mother was alao pres
ent, with another daughter. Tho child Emma il
beautiful white girl, nearly Il years old, well
educated and Intelligent. Tho mother lived in
st. Louis, is co1ored woman, and WAS formerly
o slave.
The testimony was principally as to tho char
acter and ability Of the mother on ono hand,
and ar. Moore on the other. The mother was
shown to be respectable and Industrious Sew
cral we'll known citizens, including atr. Seth "
Harding, Mr. Garrick, the Superintendent OF
McCormick's Reaper Works, and others. testified
to tho character and means of hlr. Moore, who
is Superintendent Of the Palm Club House. on
Monroe street.
1t appeared that the girl had lived with Mr.
Moore most Of tho time for tho last seven years.
Moore claimed that tho mother gave the Child
to him; this WIS denied by tEo mother, and
thoro was testimony both ways.
When the testimony was all III, Mr. Ella pro-
duced the child and asked the Court to examine
her privately as to whether she was restrained
Of her liberty by Mr.. Moore, and as to her treat
mont, and with whom elo wished to ROMAN.
The Judge took the child on one sido and inter-
rogated her. Afterwards she WAS questioned ny
Mr. Ella, on tho part Of the defendant, Moore,
and by 1lr. Hodges, on the part Of the mother
She said sho wished to remain with Mr. Moore !;
that she WAS not restrained OF her liberty; that
her mother had t7icd to tako her away, and Bhe
had run ayrey from her back to Moore. SEe Va3
iu constant attendance at tho Scamnon School,
Stood high in her class, and was studying Ger
man.
Mr.. Hodges, in his argument. claimed that tho
mother waa the natural guardian OF tho child,
mud was proper person to take care other, and
the Court should give her tho custody. as it was
not proved that she had legally parted with this
right.
only QUESTION the Court had anything to do
with on tho return of writ Of hdbcds corpus
was, Is the party restrained Of her Ibcrty2 and
il not, the Court must guasll the writ, ana dis
charge tho defendant Al the evidence IN th1s
case showed t;l2t tho child WAS not restrained
OF her liberty; Moore must, therefore,
be digchnrgod, and the child allowed to remain
or TO- wherever s1le chooses. That, admitting
that the mother was tho legal guardian, there
never had been n case whore o child OF this age
aud intelligence had been compelled to 60 to her
legal guardian against her will, md tao Court
had no power to SO compel ler in proceeding
OF this nature. Mr. Ella also claimed that oven
il the Court could direct where the child should
70, thoy should exercise O discretion and place
her where her best interests could be subeeryed.
The counsel cited cases in 10 Pickering, Massa-
chusetts and kcnt'a Commentaries.
Mr.. Chase made the closing argument for tho
mother. He claimed that tls rulo that tho
mother should have tho custody Of hor Child
should be applied in this case; that the Court
had the power to give the child to tho mother
that it should be done when, as in this case, tho
mother is shown to be 4 suitable person to take
tie care Of the child. he cited cases in the
legal Necs, Feb. 10, 1879 (S4th Indiana, 168) and
in Tyler's Treatise.
The Court delivered an elabornte decision, say
ing, in substance, that the mother was undoubt-
ed1y proved to bo proper person to take tho
care OF the child; that she had done nothing to
forfeit her right, but that the child
wished to remain with Mr. Moore
She was not restrained OF her liberty,
and WAS being properly taken care Of. The
Court Baid no was satisfied, from his oxamina-
ton OF the child, that she desired to remain with
hIr, Moore. aud that she could not live happily
with her mother on account OF the stel-father,
the mother having married again, and he was
satisfied that it was for the interest of tho child
to remain where s1,o was. She waa receiving q
that it appearing TINT the child was not reetrain-
cd Of her iborty the Court would not, in pro-
ceoding Of thus nature, compel a child Of this
age to 70 to her mother, against her will, and
the defendant muet be discharged, and tho child
allowed to remain with Mr.. Moore.