Daily globe. [volume] (St. Paul, Minn.) 1878-1884, 1883-11-17
SATURDAY MORNING. NOVEMBER IT, 1882
AMoDERN SOLOMON.

A MODERN SOLOMON.
Judge Brill Decides as to the Maternity of
an Infant In a Very Satisfactory Manner
to all vitality Concerned.
It is recorded in the good book that
king Solomon once sat in judgment
in the matter of two mothers claiming the
same babes and with wonderful wisdom
came to the right decision as to its true
paternity by ordering one of his swords
men to split the youngster in twain with
| this weapon.
Judge Brill in the hearing of an action
of habeas corpus yesterday brought to re-
cover an infant child by its
mother Lizzie Mienicke from ME-.
and Mrs. j. M. Merrill,
| was in similar dilemma to that of the
ancient king, until turn in the evidence
let the light fully in upon the ownership
of little waif.
1t seems that Lizzie left quiet Iowa
town and went to Dakota with brother
| to pre-empt land, and afterwards took
service with man in Fargo as house
keeper and was seduced by him. On her
return she stopped at st. Paul at the Min
| mesota house, and Mrs. Saunders, the
wife of a runner for that house, took such
| an interest in her that she told her mis-
| fortune to her, and thinking to hide her
shame from her respectable parents in
Iowa, she paid 500 to Mrs. Saunders and
gave her the child, the latter promising
| to care for it tenderly and bring it up as
| her own.
| Lizzie went to Iowa, where her parents
| and friends had become aware of her con-
dition, and although they oondoned her
| fault, were led to believe that she had
criminally made way with her child. She.
therefore, to substaniate her innocence and
| reclaim her baby, came back to this city
| four weeks ago on the hunt and finally
| found Mrs. Simmons at Red Wing, and
they came to the city hospital where the
latter had placed the founding, instead of
caring for it as she promised, and told the
matron, Mr.. Thompson, that Lizzie was
its mother.
The history of the waif after Mrs. Sim
mons had rid her hands of it and left it
when we'll at the hospital, claiming it was
ill, was that Mrs. Merrill, who had lost a
child by death, and returned another child
which she had taken from the hospital
which had been taken sick on her
hands and whose funeral expenses
she did not feel able to bear, thereto had
in place thereof taken Lizzie's child. This
child Mrs. Merrill had kindly cared for
during long sickness, and did not feel
like giving up, and when Lizzie traced it
to her, wonld not give it up. At the trial
she made quite case by stating that Liz
zie could not perfectly identify her own
baby without seeing it when she asked her
to describe it; that the baby in question
was the same one she returned i'll to the
hospital for funeral; that Lizzie was not
the woman who came to her about the
child and claiming to be its mother, etc.
| But the testimony of the matron of the
City hospital, that the original "taken"
baby died the next day after Mrs. Merrill
returned it to the hospital, that the baby
in question vas the one that
| Mrs. Simmons had come to
her with Lizzie and said was the latter's,
and the proving by the hospital records of
these facts, led the court to decide for the
girl and she therefore came into possession
| Of her own. In regard to LiZzie's being
held to the Merrili's over the expenses of the
case of the child, the court held the latter
had no claim, as they had not adopted the
little prattler, who was in court, and to
whom it was evident those having it in
possession were much attached.
City Attorney Murray, who represented
Lizzie as counsel, said that there was a
healthy male infant in charge of the prop
er authorities on whom no one would ever
make claim aud recommended Mrs. M.
to soothe her loss of one baby by taking
another, when the child loving ladyprompt-
ly told him she had already this little waif
| in her kind care The turn WAS so neat
that the presence of the court could not re-
strain moments laughter on the part of
all hands at this denoument.