Ellsworth American. [volume] (Ellsworth, Me.) 1855-current, 1885-09-10
An Interesting Law Case.
A FATHER SUES FOR THE CUSTODY OF HIS
CHILD.

A very interesting law case was tried be-
fore Justice l.. A. Emery, on Saturday after
noon and evening; the question involved
was the possession of a child. The father,
Edward Osgood, of Surry, appeared as the
petitioner, claiming right to the possession
of his child, and the grandparents, Mr.. and
Mrs. Watson ID. Ellington. also of Surry
appeared as the respondents, denying such
right.
The facts brought out during the trial
were as follows some two years ago the
wife Of Edward Osgood, dying, requested
that Der little gill, then some three years of
age, be given 10 the child's grandmother;
this the father was unwilling to do, but
promised, according TO the testimony of the
respondents. that the child might live with
its grandparents always and that he would
never take it away.
According to his own testimony, he
promised that the child might live with its
IL
has been accustomed to do. but owing to
some disagreement between Mr.. Osgood and
Mrs. Ellington this plan was no, carried
out. and she did not obtain possession of
the child until some two or three months
after her daughters death, and then without
the fathers consent; and on his subsequent
demand for the child, Mrs Ellington re-
fused to give the child up. Shortly after
this refusal Mr.. Osgood went to Colorado
and remained two years. marrying during
his absence a lady froi. mat State. On his
return to Surry in June, he did not demand
the child until some two weeks ago, when
he attempted to take the child BY force from
its grandparents in the church at Surry, at
the close OF service. Unable to do this bv
reason of the interference Of the people
present. he asked by his counsel that writ
Of hdbcas corpus be issued BY Justice Emery
to obtain possession of his child. Judge G
j. Dutton appeared for the petitioner and
WIswell x King for the respondents. The
right to the possession O. the child WAS re-
sisted on the following grounds first, that
the father had waived his right to tie pos
session Of his child by the promise alleged
10 have been made at the deaih-bed of his
wife. and also by allowing the child to re-
effort TO regain possessions second, that he
had not sufficient pecuniary means to prop
er, support the child; third, that the faith
ers moral character was such that it would
be detrimental to the interests of the child
to in,rust it 10 his care.
Many witnesses we're summoned to prove
these points and an equal number to rebut
them.
1t was further claimed that il was for the
best interests Of the child that il should re-
main with It's grandparents, il appearing
BY the evidence that the father had three
other children Of his own. and that his wife
had also three minor children. only one Of
whom. however. was under his care, the
other Two being provided for in Colorado,
fnd il also appeared tina; he had no accumu
lated property while on the other hand the
grandparents we're proper persons 10 have
the care Of the child and that they we're
financially able ,e properly care for the child.
having no unmarried children Of their own.
From the testimony it was evident tina,
considerable local feeling was sroused over
the matter and the result of the trial was
aw aiied with intense interest by those who
had gathered to listen.
Mr.. Ming in behalf Of the respondents /
made a strong and able plea ,ha, the child !
Nigh, remain With It's grandparents. and /
Judge Dalton argued with equal earnest I
ne-s and clearness tha, the fathers RICH; /
was prlmar, and paramount and could no, |
be waived without his consent, unless be- |
yond doub, the father a person so man
lfrsily unfit 10 have charge OF child that
the State would interfere and appoint some
suitable guardian Judge Emery decided
that the custody Of the child should be given
TO the father. stating the reasons for hi.
conclusion. clearly. COMPARATIVELY and
fully. LAYING dow As premise the funda.
men,a! principle bat the child a, its birth
was under the control Of the State tina, the
State in order TO remove the necessity of APP
pointing proper guardian at each birth. Sc
lected the father to be the guardian in each
rasp and ,ba, his rich, couid mot he tai ep
away except in very marked instances. and
he found none of the charges presented
either Of such nature or so sufficiently
well supported as to warrant him in remoy-
ing the child from lis proper guardian.
The scene at the close of the trial when
the child was taken from its grandparents
and given to It's father was affecting in the
extreme.