The New York herald., 1878-09-29
THE COURTS.
Decision as to What Constitutes
Cruelty to Children.
INTERESTING TO BANK DEP0SITORS
Claims for Damages for Regrad-
ing Uptown Streets.

An important decision made yesterday by
Judge Daniels which may have the effect OF chang
ing method OF procedure heretofore followed by
the Society for the Proven ton OF Cruelty Children
On the Goth day OF June last the Society tor The Pre-
vention OF Cruelty to Children procured warrant
for the OF George Atkins the actor from Judge
Donohue, of the Supreme Court, a complaint made
by officers, charging him with cruelty beating his
little son Robert ana through which proceedings the
society obtained tho custody OF the boy until the de-
termination OF the case. The matter referred TO
Mr. William Sinclair to take proof OF the charges
made by the society under the protest OF Mr. Atkins
counsel, Colonel George II. Hart, who claimed on the
argume mt before Judge Daniels, when the reference
was ordered, that the Court had jurisdiction in
the premises; that the proceedings were unwar-
ranted by law, and that the Judge stood
in position of trespasser, together with
all parties concerned. Colonel Hart continued
TO protest every stage the proceedings
and challenged the counsel Tor the society to main
tain their position by any statute or law. Several
days were occupied in taxing testimony before Mr..
Sinclair on behalf OF the society, who were repre-
sented by their counsel, Mr.. William Il. Gibson,
the close OF wnicn Mr AtKins, under the lnslruc
tons OF his counsel declined 10 oner any testimony
on nis behalf, Cocne Hart contentng himself with
making OBJECTIONS which appear every line OF the
record made for judgment
the PROOFS taken in the atter part OF July, before
Judge Daniels, which the respective counsel supple
mentea with oreis Decision the gwen
yesterday oy Judge Daniels, which is given in fuil
below
Although the warrant issued for the defendants
rest not have been authorized by the provisions
of the statue in which that process may be used IN
stead OF writ OF habeas corpus GER
torari, this proceeding should not be dis
missed, for the petition on which It was issued
and the warrant itself charged tho commission
OF criminal offence, IL was stated in both ,hat inc
defendant had repeatedly committed an assault and
battery upon Ihe person of his infant child, and tor
that offence warrant could be lawfully issued,
this was, by Justice OF this Court the appl-
~ n ihA fnYfn
prevent the cruel treatment OF chidren. (Iaws eff
1879, chapter $50, section g. B. r. s.. nth edition,
p93, section IL me object OF the proceeding, how
not the examination ana punishment OF the
person arrested ior tnat offence, but 1t the
inoval oil his chud from his custody and control be-
of this alleged misconduct the part OF the
parent and evidence has been taken TO establish
the facts upon which the proceeding
sttuted. This evidence has been submtte 10
the Court by the referee under whose supervision
was taken, while 1t appears to have suiicie ally
established the misconduct Of the accused 1t not OF
such nature to justify the removal OF the child
from MS stody that account 1t is only where
upon an examination had OF The accused II shall DO
appear that a MINOR child under the age OF
sixteen years IS being useG In dangerous perform
forbidden occupations, as these have been
mentioned and enumerated Ia The hrst section OF
chapter 122 oil The Laws OF 1876 conviction has
been had oil criminal assault, that the parent
can be deprived OF his custody and control No
such employment OF this chd has been shown
evidence that has been takeD and the accused
has not been rled or convicted OF the assault which
the evidence tends 10 show was committed by MIN on
me OF this infant chd and, besides thai the
Examination was not sneh as 1t has bsen declared shall
DC mad OF the justify an
order that tho accused should be held
.or trial But while Is case it will
Justify direction dismissng the proceeding
For tnat examination may SIM be had but while
taat the the proceeding may stil DO retained
Tor that purpose but II should be SO retained because
DISMISSAL would the boy to the CUSTODY Of
The fathsr where his safety woud be endangered by
repeIion OF the cruelty the evidence tends 10 show
he already suffered. He child OF less than
years OF age, OF delicate constitution, whose health
n bis lie, would be endangered by u
continuation OF the cruel beatngs he has probably
received And as ne is now under the custody OF the
society he should be there retained until a criminal
nation OF the accused can be had, unless that
shall be waived and his recog given for MS ap
pcaf before criminal term of the Court await
Tue action OF the Grand Jury on this accusation
That may be had before Justice Of this Court
at any ume that Will accord with the convenience
OF the counsel and the business of The Court
Ordinarily TINS would be remitted
nitting magistrate; but as that would be attended
with the restoration OF the control OF the accused
the person Of this child II should not be done Ia
this Instance, but the examination should be mad in
this court, where the proceeding is now pending.
And AS already suggested, that disposition Will be
made o the ana The present custody OF the child
continued where II now IS until Tue examination can
be completed and the snail be finally posed OF
by the action Ot The proper tribunal.