National Republican. (Washington City (D.C.)) 1872-1888, 1879-01-24
The o'Brien-uazei Habeas Corpus.

nv pNNliluh WIS blbuEhb W Nhc ilutu VI
Mary J. O'Bricn, now Hazel-against the
father, Charles II. O'Brien, and the grand
mother, Mary oBrien, to recover the possession
of the child, and setting up reasons why her
prayer should he granted.
The respondent Mary o'Brcn Charles II.
0'Brien having left the city, made answer
that the child had been indenturod to her,
and she held It by that authority. This return
was iraversed by tho petitioners counsel, and
q reply made denying the allegations set
forth.
Then came the solicitor on the other side
and made up the issue by filing a replication
to the answer, in which 1t is stated that the
child, Mary Rose O'Brieu, was for three years
au inmate of her house and under her care, and
that she was removed by the petitioner in a ut
of passion caused by some anced slight re-
ceived FROM one of the daughters Of the re-
spondont. She denies that either fraud or
force was uscd or necessary for her son to re.
sumo his patcrnal rights aud duties. That the
indenture was legal and sufficient but inde-
pendent Of that, she received the child from
the father with full power and authority to
care for aud have the custody-of her. The re.
spondent alleges that the petitioner is the lie.
gal wife of her son, Charles II. O'Brien, and
| that she has no home for Mary Rose O'Bren
except that in which she is living with one
John Hazel, TO whom she pretends to be mar
| ricd.
The respondent then proceeds to recite the
| fact Of Mrs. O'Brien filing a bill for divorce
and, before a decision was reached, marrying
with Hazel and she believes that Charles II.
| O'Brion is unwilling that his daughter shall
be under the care of her mother and Hazel so
| long as she shall maintain such improper, lille
gal relations with him. The respondent fur.
| ther says that Charles II. O'Bricn has good
| Il In I ,t,is ii ,,,,n a.
tain his child, If it should be necessary.
After the disposition of some of the impend.
ing criminal matters the Rd5sas corpus case was
taken mp, Mr.. Frank Gloss appearing for the
petitioner aud Francis Miller, esq for the re.
! spondent.
TESTIMONY.
| The following evidence WAS taken:
Colonel Amos Webster, Register of Wills
was examined and testified that the Probate
Court WAS not in session on the 18th of Jan.
uary last. There was no judge present on that
day, aud only the ordinary business before The
Register was transacted. The paper of in.
denturc was not filed In that Office, but is re-
corded there.
Augustus Brown testified that he was q
member of the police force, and knew Mrs
Hazel also when she was MIS-. O Bricn. Had
known her for sixteen years. She was an hon.
est, hard-wOr ing woman, aud made her living
by sewing, Had heard her say that the child
was OF tho grnndmOther's while she was max
ing . living for it.
Mr.. Burdetto, grocer in Georgetown, hat
known Mrs Hazel since she was a child, and
never heard her reputation questioned.
Mr.. Wood, the brother of Mrs. Hazel, testi
fed that the mother worked for the child aud
clothed it, She had lived with witness father,
family ever since OBrcn was convicted o
crime,
Mr. George Harry, of Tennallytown, testified
| ~, lion, %
THE MOTHERS STORY.
Ms. Hazel was then examined. She testi
fed that the child was born October %, 1877!
Mr.. O'BriCn was arrested for murder in July
1873. Since that time she had clothed ant
taken care Of the child. On Friday Januar,
, TO- Mrs. Mary O'Brion came to the house o
witness and said that the father was goin
away and wanted the child to como and rc
b main until Sunday with him. She consented
> aud afterward received letter informing he
what had been done OCttcr read about eigh
, o'clock Saturday night. She went there o
) Sunday morning, and O'Brien's sister an
mother dragged the child from the arms Of vii
ness and sent for policeman to arrest. hCl
She was lawfully married TO Mr. Hazel on o.
t tober goth last. Neither Charles Brien nor hi
S family ever furnished a cent or any clothin
X. fog the child during the six years O'Bren wa
: In the pententary.
= She brought suit in tho Equity Court fc
e divorce from OBren She was legally MAJ
s ricd to Hazel, aud lived with him as his wifi
O'Bricn left no property, but a little furniture
h and the mother Of O'Bren got the best of tina
d She had IS Of O'Brien's money when he wen
: to the penitentary.
Mr.. Hazel, husband Of the petitioner, state
t that he was able and willingt to provide for til
t child.
c Tho record Of the court was introduced
c show that o. Brion was convicted of murde
Ieg.Na Tom nN tl ,r
scquuntly committed to imprisonment for Ii
in the Albany pcnitentary.
This closed the testimony for the petitione
THE GRANDMOTHER's STORY
!. The counsel Ior the respondent put Nh
Mary OBrien on tho stand, who tesifC
j. that Charles ii. OBJ rien was her sol
o that Rose o Brien lived with her from IS
;. to 1877, and the child was under her contr,
4 but the mother furnished her with clothC
\ The mother came one Sunday and took RO
: away, saying that her ssteT-in-law had IN
9 her on the street and would not notice he
e and, il she was not good enough to speak t
II her child should not remain there
e The recold Of the filing and dismissal Of I'll
i divorce suit was put in, and this closed IL
II evidence on both sides.
10 Arguments were made by the counsel, an
y numerous authorities cited to sustain the
n respective positions.
WHAT THE. JUDGE SAID.
C llS Honor sad that when he had more lclSu
G he would put in permanent form the vie,
'e that he entertained IN the case. This chi
n was only a few months old when the faith
b. was convicted aud sentenced for the crime
murder. What effect did II have upon d
wife and child at that time? If it had no c
feet on O'BHen's domestic rights he could ha
II taken the child away while under the sontCn
i. of execution lie did not attempt il, aud
court would have recognized it If he had,
The sentence Of death was committed to n
u prisonment for life, aud that continued for fl
d years, In the meantime the wiio was su
A. porting herself aud child. The father did u
n in any case possess the same absolute cont
~ over his child rs he did over property #
al former had q soul aud is expected tOhec0me
Y. useful momber of society Where parents ca
I. not control their offspring the law comes
NJ aud excludes them from their care,
Is Il often happened that one parent Is not
ID to have the care O. CAiil, and the other
m cmiuontly DO. In case whore q man has col
n mttCd q high crime Wll boon s,ut 10 the pc
itentiary for life the court viii not allow hi
to intervene aud take a child from the moth,
who has been proper IN all things aud
e. d,uturc n 10 somebody else. Blackstone 80
le that man sentenced TO death Is ciyily deu
Ilo would not allow the pm entail authority
p" thi- ease to be stretched 20 the extent that
N was claimed IL could be done in the fllhy
ne behalf The mother is able, willing, aud {
a- proper person 10 take the CHILD THO faith
10 bad gone TO the far West, miles away, "a