The Ouachita telegraph. [volume] (Monroe, La.) 1865-1889, 1875-07-30
Novel Law Suit.

Not many days ago Miss Carrie Graves,
a resident of Canton, Miss, obtained from
the Hon. VIM. G. Pipkin, Parish Judge OF
the parish of st. Helena, a writ of habeus
corpus, alleging that Mr.. and Mrs. Newell
of said parish illegally restrained her
daughter, aged about six years, of her
liberty. The history of this remarkable
case seems to be that the child was placed
by its father, Gen. r. n. Winter, Of Canton
under the care Of Mr.. and Mrs. Newell
who then resided In Madison county, Miss,
to be reared, the father furnishing the
means Of support, and on the condition that
Mrs. IN, should restore the child when
called for by either father or mother. Sub
seq0ently, Mr.. and Mrs. NJ, removed to
the parish ofSt. Helena. In the meantime,
the father, g man of means, residing in
Canton, Miss, died, leaving legacy to the
child., The writ of habeas corpus was
bitterly. contested in the parish Court, the
defendants denying the maternity, and
tutrix.,.33.f.5 -
The parish Judge ordered the child to be
restored to- the petitioner by, Mr.. and Mrs.
Thereupon, the defendants applied to the
parish Judge for q suspensive appeal to the
District Court, which was refused. Defen-
dants then applied for and obtained a writ
of n:GndG7nrs from tho District Court to
compel the parish Judge to grant the appeal.
The writ of anandauaMs was made absolute
and the parish Judge fixed the bond at $1O,-
GOO. Archie Watson. Esq. Sheriff of the
parish of st. Helena, remained in possession
of the child by virtue of the snspensive APP
peal till ordered by the District Judge to
deliver the child to Mr.. and Mrs. Newell.
Thereupon, the petitioner applied to Mr..
Justice WHY, Associate Justice of the
supreme Court, for q writ of hdbeas corpus,
alleging in substance, that the said Sheriff
and Mr.. and Mrs. Newell illegally detained
the child, and because of the want of juris-
diction of the District Court in the premises.
Judge WHY made the writ returnabIe
at Monroe on the 22nd of July, 1875.
Tho case was called for trial on that day,
but neither the Sheriff. MIR. and Mrs. New
ell, nor the child being in Coart, an order
was issued by Mr.. Justice Taliaferro, Senior
Justice, for the arrest of the recusant par
ties. Accordingly Sheriff Hamlet left for
the parish of st. Helena and returned on the
Goth inst, having in charge A. Watson, Esq,
Sheriff, tho remaining parties not being
found.
Tho case involves important questions OF
law, among which are:
LIST. Tho Parish Court having original
Jurisdiction in cases of hobeas corpus, does
e$h 0pPSh1 1to 70 Cne blSCr1CC SOurGT
End. The District Court also having origi-
nal jurisdiction in such cases. would an
appeal lie from that Court, when that Court
was the first to assume jurisdiction?
3rd. Had the District Court APPELLATE juris-
diction in this, Il matter Of habeas corpus
from the Parish Court? Had the Supreme
Court APPELLATE Jurisdiction in the case at ALI
1fnot, had it jurisdiction to issue a writ OF
habeas corpus under the ConstitstionP
Ard. The Supreme Court having original
jurisdiction in such cases, is not that Court
bound to inquire colIaterally into the legal
ity of the order of the District Judge, grant
ing suspensive appeal?
9Th. All ofthese Courts having concurrent.
jurisdiction, is not the action of the Cour,
which first assumes jurisdiction final i?
Altogether, it is an interesting case-auite
novel so far as the Questions of law are pro-
sented, and one which has excited "A pro-
found interest among the friends Of Miss
Graves and Mr. and Mrs. Newell, both in
Mississippi and Louisiana.