National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-01-17
MRS. HAz1ES rWo HUSBANDS.
An Interesting unbea. Corpus Case.


Last Wednesday Justice Macarthur, sitting
in the Equity Court, dismissed the bill brought
by Mary J. OBlicn for divorce from her hus.
baud, Charles Ii. O'Brien, Yesterday Mr.
Frank Gloss as her attorney, and in tho name
Of Mary J. Halle, pctitioned Justice Wylic for
writ Of hdJsos corpus to obtain from Charles
II. OBion possession Of the body of her child
Mary Rose OBrien, who is now with the
fathers mother, aud said to have been linden.
turcd to her during the daughters minority.
The petition states that on January ., ISL
the petitioner was united In marriage 20
Charles II, O'BriGn, in the city Of Georgetown
and during the continuance Of the marriage she
became the mother OF female child now
named MARY Rose O'Breu and seven years Of
age. On the lith of November 1s72, Charles
OiiHcn was convicted of murder IN the Grim.
inal Court Of this District, and sentenced to
suffer death; that on February 81. 1873, this
sentence was committed by tho President Of
the United States to imprisonment in the
Albany renitoutigry for the period of his natu-
raj life, On February %, ISIS the petitioner
applied for nm order of the Equity Court
Vt this District to relieve hor from the
bond OF matrimouy with the said Charles
II. OBrcu aud to define her legal con.
difiou 10y nu order decree Of the court. She
believes tho papers in said application were
submitted TO Justice MacArlhur, holding the
said court, in September, ISIS, but have not
yet been acted upon by said justice. On the
2O,h of October, 1875 after taking the legal adj
vice and counsel of friends, aud while O'Brian
was still confined Ia the peuiteutary, under
the lilc.scucncc, she WAS united In marriage
with her present husband, John Il. Halle
Prior to this marriage Halo was informed and
fully believed that the legal effect of the sen.
tc &C OF death passed upon O'Brien, and subsc-
quontly cJmmulgd, by his consent. 60 impri-
oumcut for life was a termination of his legal
existence, and that upon his entering on the
execution of the Clmmutcl sentence be became
dead in legal contemplation, and the petitioner,
a widow, vested by law as the surviving parent
of the child Mary Rose O'Byien, with sole
custody aud control aud power to contract
marriage. She asserts that from the time
OBHcn went TO tho pouitontiGry down 20
January 10 of the present month, she has OK
crcisod sole control Of the c,ild. On y yem-
Der 81, 1913, OBricn was parloned and re-
leased from confinement Since that time,
while the petitioner declined 10 hold personal
communication with him OF any character
whatsoever, she has at his earnest solicitation
allowed the child to visit him occasionally at
the house of his mother. On January 10 tho
| child did not return and going after her WAS
| not permitted to take her daughter away, and
| Chat she was detained from her ny force.
Justice Wylio issued tho writ and made II
returnable before him at eleven q. m. next
| saturday. Tie case is without precedent Ia
this District, il not cutiroly so. and naturally
creates comment, especially among the legal
! lights. 1t not only involves the question OF
who is entitled to the legal possession Of the
| child, but the validity of the second marriage
| contracted whiiu the frs. husband was alive
although confined in prison and without any
divorce intervening. Of course lawyers ar,
divided in choir opiUion., but sum the conaiu
I sious up IN the following concise manner:
II tho sentence to the pcuteutary for liit
made O'Bricn dead to the world in the eyes Of
The law. then Mrs O'Bricn was regarded lo
ally as widow, aud vested notouiy with the
control oil tho child, but hcir 30 what the nus
band possessed ut the time he catered upon ti,
execution Of the life sentence. TiOui that
| theory fail 10 stand, then is O'Bricn not only
entitled TO tho custody Of his child, manage
ment and dispose! othi. property, bat the wifi
guilty ofcommittin-h ig4uy. This hcarugueX
Saturday will douAticss pryTo highly interest
ing, 10 all these point; will b, presented su'
authorities cited pro and con barring upon Tia,
case. Mr.. Francis Miller h, been retained b.,
the respondent