The Morning herald., 1876-01-11
DECINION OF JUDGE WAL1S.
The Lynch minors.

OECx0xVN VC y O~~ - :"
The Lynch Minors.
prwANpED AND RETURNED TO THE GUS
rony OF THEIR GRANDFATHER
OPINION OF HON. LEONARD Z. WALES
IN FULL.
THE STATE Elk RELATIONS JOHN F. LiNon
VS.. JAMES BRATToN.
The writ of Habeas Corpus in this case
was issued upon the petition OF Jonn :.
Lynch, and directed to James nra'ton,
commanding him to bring before me sne
persons therein named, together WIN the
cause of their being taken and detained. !,
On the day appointed tor the return o.
the writ and the hearing OF the petltion,
Mr.. Bratton produced the persons named 10
the writ, to wit: Mary Lynch, aged 10; Jonn
Lynch, aged 9, and James b. Lyncn, agea
d: and also made return IN wrltlns anu
under oath, in which he cerunes Cne caaSes
Of their detention by him. Inc substance
of them is that the said Mary, yon9 anu
James are the children of John +. Lynch
and Emma ]. Lynch, who were married on
the 5th of February, 1856; that Emma was
the daughter of the respondent who, IN the
month of October, 1859, finding that the re,
lator was unable to support his wife and
two children, William then two years ola
and Mary, an infant of three weeks, LOOK
them to his own house where they renamed
until March, 1856; that during tnis
interval Emma and her cnll-
dren lived separate from tne
relator who contributed nothing whatever
to their support; that in the early part oi
1864. Emma and her children went to i've
with the relator in Wilmington, where ne
had commenced business; that about this
time. or shortly after, the relator acquired
habits of intemperance which grew 10 De SO
CONFIRMED and excessive that he not only
neglected to provide for his family, out
treated them with extreme cruelty, so tnat
in December, 1870, the said Mary was com
pelled to leave her fathers house ana mas
ever since lived with the respondent; that
for three years the relator paid no rent, ana
the respondeut had to contribute to the sup
mort of the said Emma and her children;
and that finally, on the 14th of March, 1878,
IN conseouence of the continued intemper-
ance. neglect and cruelty of her husband,
Mrs. Lynch obtained from the Legislature
of Delaware. an act of divorce, s'nc"Io,
bv the I'd section of which it was enacted,
"That the said Emma j. Lynch shall nave
the sole care, charge and CUSTODY VI heT
children" The return turther SETS 1ortn
that on the 10th of August, 1873, the salo
Emma died, having committed the care OF
her children to the said respondent and MS
wife, who took thep and have ever since
wholly maintained them, except 90 lar as
the wages of the eldest child, william,
aided in his support; that said William dled
in August. 1874, at the house OF the re-
epondept: that the relator in April, 1874,
married apain and now resides In Philadel
pbia: that the respondent is able snd anx-
IONS TO support the said children who are
much attached to him and his wife, and de-
sire to remain with them; that it would be
greatly detrimental to the interests OF the
children to remove them from their present
home and commit them to the CUSTODY OF
the relator who by his violent temper, bis
intemperate and improvident habits is
wholly unfit to take care OF them, anu mas
forfeited all right to them, and that IN addl
tion to this whatever right OF CUSTODY M
NAV have had are completely annulled by
the act Of divorce.
To this return there was general denial
on the part of the relator, but more par
ticularly to that portion Of 1t relating to MS
present character and conduct and his MT.
ness 70 have charge OF the children. 1t
was alleged that since his last
marriage he has reformed his hap'ts
and established new position IN
in society, entiJling him to the respect and
confidence of his friends and netghbors, and
to the restoration of his paternal rights.
A number of witnesses testified tothe ma
terial facts contained in the return, and the
private act of divorce, duly authorized
and recorded, was exhibited. One witness
swore that he had seen the relator lntoxl-
Gated since his last marriage.
On the part OF the relator 1t was shown
that for nearly two years past his life mas
been industrious, sober snd reputable, thai
he is carrying on fair business and Is aole
to maintain and educate his children. On
these grounds it was claimed by his counsel
that the only question TO be considered was:
whether John f. Lynch s~aot fit and capa-
BILE to have the charge of his children, he
having the legal right to their custody; since
the legislative act assigning them to their
mother, being in the nature of an interlocu-
tory decree. was not final or conclusive, and
the trust thereby imposed on the mother not
being transmissable by descent, on her death
the rights of the father revived. 1t was also
argued that something was due to the
repentance and reformation Of the relator
it is not necessary to review the evidence
in detail. Enough has been stated to
afford room for the application Of the legal
principles, which will govern and control
the decision OF the case. These principles
are to be found in the modern text books
and in long and ample current Of authori
ties from Lord Mansheld's Is time to the pres
ent. The right of the father to the custody o
his infant child, grows out of his duty tt
maintain, educate and protect It, and while
he gives it education and support, he is en-
titled to its services. But this right Is not al
absolute one, and is often made to yielc
when the best interests Of the child require
that it should. Society also has an interes
in the welfare and morals of children, ant
it is for the public, that, in determining
Questions of custody the good of the chilt