The Durham daily globe. (Durham, N.C.) 1889-1894, 1892-12-13
THE RIGHTS or PARENTS.


for His Children.
4 curious question from Canada on
the law IF parent and chill has recently
been decided il london by the Judicial
committee Of tie prIvy council. which
is the court for the hearing and deter
mination Of appeals in colonial cases.
The parties 10 the litigation were a
Nr. and Mrs. Smart Of the province of
Ontario. Ir. Smart, was addicted to
the use Of strong drink, and so much SO
that Mrs. Smart found it impracticable
to live with him. She therefore left him,
and took with her the children of the
marriage, whereupon the husband en-
deavored to regain their custody by
means Of habeas corpus proceedings. All
the courts before which the case came i'll
the Dominion of Canada decided in favor
Of til. wife. Under the laws Of Ontario
the courts have express power to dispose
Of the custody of minors under twelve
Years OF ace, with exclusive reference
10 the welfare of the children themselves,
but the question was whether this
authority extended to the children t
the age Of twelve. The Canadian tri-
bunals decided that it did, and that Mr..
Smart was an unfit custodian.
The same view has been taken by the
Judges who constitute the judicial COM
mittee Of the privy council OF Great
Britain. They hold that 1.-The modern
feeling as to drunkenness renders habit
ual intemperance an offense important
enough to be made the ground for dis
regarding the patria pOtestas," or pa
rental power. Under the law as thus
laid down, therefore, Il father who be-
comes an habitu&l drunkard is liable to
lose the right to the custody of his chill
dren.
This result is III accordance with the
| tendency of judicial decision III this
state and the United States generally.
A case which we'll illustrates the doc
trine Of the NV York courts in this
braI.-h Of tie law j. the matter of Wat
| son, which cGme before Mr.. Justice
Daniels, of the suprene court. at q spe-
cial term III Buffalo ten years ago. The
parties We're Il Physician and his wife,
| who I'D bccr married ii 1865 and lived
| together until 1876, when, by the hus-
bands direction. the wife took their two
| children aud Went to live with her own
| relative, il the western part of the
| state, while he continued to practice
medicine il the eastern part, employing
u housekceper to look after his house
| hold, having determined to live no long
Ell uith his wife. III 1882 lac applied to
the court to award lin the custody of
| the children upon proofs showing that
he was able to support Il care for
| them and that his general moral char
| acter was good. One child was a boy
| fourteen years Of age; the other a girl of
| sixteen. The mother had acquired such
| d knowledge Of medicine herself as to
| earn an income by her practice as a
physician sufficient to provide them
| with a comfortable maintenance and a
| good education. The boy was not in
robust health and the girl needed Il
mothers care. Under these circum-
| stances Judge Daniels declined to trans
fer them to the custody of the father.
He had sent them away from his home
when they We're comparatively helpless,
without being justified or excused by any
misconduct on the part Of his wife, and
the court declared that it would be do
ing wrcnG - Z.Te ta"m back 70 him.
Every well considered decision on this
subject emphasizes the welfare of the
child as the test bv which to determine
to whom its custody should be awarded.
New York sun.