Nashville union and American. [volume] (Nashville, Tenn.) 1868-1875, 1874-12-03
Is Blood Thicker Than Water, After
The Sad Story of Divided Household.

refused TO do, and the matter was referred
TO the Circuit Court.
Messrs. NJ. NJ. Brien, Jr., and Johr
Lellyett appeared for the plaintiffs and Capt
Thomas i. Dodd for the defendants.
All of the parties were in court yesterday
and presented very uncommon picture
The child chung to its adopted mother, and
the latter, when questioned as to her attach
ment for it, replied feelingly that she
swould as willingly part with any membel
Of her own body as with the child"
The story is a remarkable one and We
leave its details to the opinion of Judge
Baxter, which we subjoin as being of in.
terest both TO the public and the bar
State at the relation Of Reed and wife VS.. Cat
lin and wife.
The case Of Paine vs.. Paine, Humph.
reys. 52S, establishes these principles as the
law of Tennessee:
l. That the father is entitled to the ex-
elusive custody of his children, even as
against the mother.
2. Ifhe have the custody of them, a
court of common law will not deprive him
of it, except for an abuse Of trust, either by
improper violence or improper restraint,
such as would justify the issuance of a
writ of habeas corpus for their protection.
3. But a court of common law is not
bound in proceeding by habeas corpus TO
deliver the child 10 the father, where be has
not the possession of it, but may act upon
its discretion, according to the eircum-
stances of the case.
4. In all such cases, the great leading OBJ
ject should be the interest and welfare of
the child.
5. When the child is Of sufficient age to
Judge for itself the court should leave it TO
go where it pleases.
as not to be capable of judging for itself. the
court will judge for it, and in doing so, con-
suit its interest exclusively.
Upon these principles this case must be
decided. 1t is unnecessary to determine
whether the proceedings in the County
Court for the adoption of the child by the
defendants were regular or irregular. For,
granting they were entirely regular, l am
of opinion the statute authorizing the adop-
ton did not intend to divest the father of
his legal right to the custody of his child,
or confer upon the person adopting the
child right to the custody of it in hostility
to the right Of the father.
1t then becomes a matter Of judicial dis
cretion with the court, acting with an eye
single to the interest and welfare Of the
child, whether the child shall be left where
it is or be ordered into the custody of the
father.
If the interest of the child is equally
balanced, suppose no court would hest
tate moment TO take a child from the Gus
4a1x ~ ctr in nd rala in
the Gust ody of its father; and, on the other
hand, if the court can see that it would be
manifestly to the interest of the child to
remain where it is, it will not disturb it.
The proof shows that the defendants, in
possession of the child, though in moderate
circumstances, are persons of unblemished
reputation, prosperous and thrifty-in the
language OF one Of the Witnesses able 70
maintain and educate half dozen children.
They have been married some ten or twelve
years, and have no children of their own,
and from the fact of their having adopted
this, the presumption is they do not antici-
pate having any. Mrs. Gatlin was present
and examined before the court. She has
all the exterior of an elegant lady, and a
lady of taste in dress and manners. Her
examination was marked with degree OF
good sense and propriety not usual to be
exhibited by ladies under such test. Mr..
Gatlin is shown by the proof to be a mas
ter mechanic, OF high reputation in his pro-
feSsion, and commanding, in large degree,
the confidence and esteem Of those who
know him.
On the other hand, it pains me to say The
REALTORS present very different picture.
As appears from bill fled by the moth
er against the father on the 18th of March,
1873, asking to be divorced from him and
for alimony, she then and there charged
him with many acts of cruel and inhunIan
conduct toward her and many gross indig-
mites to her person, such as, if true, would
stamp him as brute, unfit TO be the head
of family, the husband of a wife, or the
father Of child. ..
Nearly all of these allegations, however,
he broadly and fatty denies, as being with
out any foundation in truth, and such as
are not thus denied, he so qualities and
modifies as to show them to have been
harmless and innocent. After thus deny
ing her allegations, he turns upon her, with
something in the nature of a cross bill, in
which he charges her with the grossest
misconduct, such as the instincts of society
cannot tolerate neither in a wife nor lady,
and which, if true, would certainly unfit
her to be the custodian and educator of a
female child.
| abstainfrom passing any Judgment upon
the truth or falsehoOd of either OF the
charges or counter-charges preferred by these
parties against each other, because it is not
necessary that a judicial determination
should be reached upon those questions.
But the parties proceeded to take volumes
of testimony on both sides, very much of
which is of very ugly character, and such
as, if not to produce conviction, at least to
excite suspicion.
These parties were married some seven
years ago, the husband at the age of 40
years and the wife AZ the age Of Is or II.
Within that time they have separated three
or four times, and came together again,
having in some way compromised their d.
voree suit. They are living together at
present, and have been for some two
months past. Their longest separation at
any one time was about one year. During
the time she has had him arrested on a
peace warrant and imprisoned in the
county jail. All the proof that shows any
thing of their manner of life presents the
most gloomy picture Of poverty and desti-
tuition, some of the time not only without
ordinary comforts, but without even the
necessarieS of life. The husband jealous
of his wife and satisfied of her infdelity;
the wife taunting him with his age and in
trinity, having a great aversion to bis
daughter by his first wife, and constantly
insisting on her being sent away, and he
pesistently refusing to do it, and some of
the proof indicating motive too abhorent
to be believed and too disgusting to be
mentioned-taken altogether, the proof
portrays domestic picture, the most cheer
less, the most gloomy, and most fOrbidding.
Surely such house as no Christian man
would be willing to send his own child to
for education and moral training; such a
house as no court, duly sensible of its duty,
can send any child to who has a better
home.
These parents, as 1 have said, are now
living together, and have been for some two
months. If they continue 10 live together,
the mother is to have the care Of the child.
She confesses 10 having abandoned it and
to have given it to the defendant.
She went voluntarily to defendant, who
was a stranger she had never seen before,
and besought her to take the child, and
when defendant manifested reluctance lest