The Roanoke times. [volume] (Roanoke, Va.) 1890-1895, 1890-08-21
VS.. BRENT.
SUING FOR THE CUSTODY OF
HIS DAUGHTER.
Mr.. BRENT APPEARS As PLAINTIFF.
Tho Demurrer overrnled and the Case
on TriaI-wiincsses for the Prosecu-
toned Examined and Cross. Ex,na-
ine,i--Tie Defense.

The suit of j. P. Brent for the pos
session Of his two-year-old daughter
which his wife, who has separated
from him, has retained, was begun
yesterday in the Hastings Court be
fore Judge Robertson.
A few years ago Miss Willie A
Bowles, daughter of w. II. Bowles,
and j. P. Brent, a young contractor
were married.
AS time wore on trouble arose, and
last spring Mr.. and Mrs. Brent sepa-
rated, Mrs. Brent going to her faith.
er's. Soon after this she instituted
suit for divorce, but failed to show
reason.
Then Mr. Brent sued for possession
of his chlli. The case came up in the
Husting Court last week, but was
postponed on account of the absence
of witnesses. The hearing was com
menced yesterday morning.
p. Lockett, Esq, counsel for the
plaintiff, read the petition, setting
forth the grounds upon which the
suit was brought, and asking that
Amelia D. Brent, daughter of the
be delivered to his care.
G. W. Hansbrough, counsel for the
read the answer to the
petition which declared the plaintiff
unfit to rear the child, and entered a
which the cod:t- a"ernled.
The first witness was Mrs. NJ. l..
Brent, mother of j. Z. Brent. She
knew nothing of the separation of
her son and his wife, except what she
had heard. She had raised twelve
children and was willing to take care
Of her sons child and treat it as her
own. She had never entertained any
but kind feelings toward Mrs. Brent,
and that her doors were open to Mrs.
Brent, even if she should want to-
make her home with her. She
thought her son more able TO provide
for the child than its mother, and
that he had home at her house,
should he choose to return there.
Being cross examined, she said that
her husbands property consisted of
600 acres Of land besides personal
that no one was depen-
dent on him, and that she and her
lived alone. Her son left
home more than five years ago; went
TO Texas and stayed two months; re-
turned home, and came to Roanoke,
where he has. been since. He had
given her no trouble until this affair
She had not encouraged the suit, but
toid her son she would care for the
child if he was successful. When
asked by Judge Williams, counsel for
if she considered herself
better qualified to rear>tbe child than
its own mother, Mrs Brent replied
that she thought all old people better
qualified for raising children than
young people. Judge Williams tried
TO get II direct answer
yes or no. to this question, but
the above was all he could elicit. Mrs.
Brent said that she had seen her son
have one fit, but that he was per-
fecily harmless.
The next witness was DR.. Childress,
who testified to the social and tinan-
cial standing of the Brent family. He
never saw plaintiff take drink or
under the influence of intoXicants.
Cross-examined, DR.. Childress said
he had known plaintiff about five
years, but not intimately, and that
he knew nothing Of his habits or
moral character.
DR.. Jones testified that he has been
4 practising physician in Roanoke
FOR two years; that during that time
he has been plaintiffs family ply
sician. Plaintiff had asked him to
attend his wife since the separation,
which he refused to do, as he did not
know whether it would be agreeable
to Mrs. Brent's parents. Plaintiff
seemed afIectionate towards his wife,
md never refused medical attention
when needed. He knew nothing of
plaintiffs business. Plaintiff was
subject to epileptic fits that rendered
him unconscious but not dangerous.
When questioned as to what causes
epilepsy, witness said that there are
different causes and that anything
that eXcites or depresses the nervous
system aggravates the disease; that
ne had never seen plaintiff driok, but
had warned him against intoXicants.
Albert Martin testified that he had
known plaintiff for five years, but
knew nothing of his financial stand
ing: that about the first of March he
carried note and some photographs
Of the child, from plaintiff for Mrs.
Brent, to Dir. Bowles; he was met at
the door by Mrs. Bowles, who refused
to take the notes or pictures. Witness
said he would recognize the note. Mr..
Locket handed him one, which he read,
and said that the contents were SINH
lar to the one carried by him. The
date was June 90, and witness said he
was not positive as to whether this
was the same note. The note was
about some photographs of the child.
Witness had carried several messages
from plaintiff to Mrs. Brent and her
father, but had never seen Mrs. Brent
at her fathers house.
Being cross-eXamined, witness said
that plaintiff had received letters
froma Miss Templeton, of Fairfield,
and that the first letters were aboutssa
house plaintiff thought of renting;
that he went with plaintiff to Fair
field to lawn party; that they
stopped with Miss TeInpleton and
had q good time; that afterwards
plain ..iff received letters from Miss
Templeton.
Mrs. L. Z. Hoyey testified that she
had lived here ten years; lived at
with her husband, and kept
house for three months since the
and that plaintiff was
kindly disposed towards his wife and
child. Gross examined, witness said
that Miss Vaughan, ofTexas, acousin
of plaintiff, visited him during her
stay at his house; that Miss Temple
ton, of Fairfield, went with young
lady of this city to visit Miss Vaughan
and remained three days; that she
was the onlylady of the house and
-, tNsf.-