The herald., 1893-12-28

As look at the matter now. the only
question in this case ia. what is for the
interest of Mrs. Pratt? The case lie not
case at law, or a caee in which Mrs.
Mansfield and Mrs. Goodspeed have any
interest. They have no rights here.
The law OF the state provides with re-.
spect to the appointment of guardian
OF q minor, that the isther should be
preferred il he he uitahle person, or,
ii he be dend ff' 'ir mother should
be entitled 'ee 80 long AZ she
remains uif Hrt in respect to
the appoint euardian OF an in
competenl III, vps no preference,
and the cniv 9aeai4en IN the case would
be who, under Nl' the circumstances,
would be the most eni,able person.
OF course, in appointing guardians,
the courts usually follow the came ruIes
that the law prescrihcs for the appoint
ment OF an administrator. Here the
daughter OF the incompetent comes in
and petitions for appointment as guar
dian. That 10 contested by the slater on
several grounds. among others that she
i is incompetent, and that che is incom-
petent by reason OF lack Of moral integ-
/ rity. Most OF the evidence upon that
point is addressed tc the charge that
come 80 years ago she gave birth to an
| illegitimate child. II she had come into
court and said. "Yee, when | was a
young girl Rave birth to an ilfegitimate
child" it would not have been sufficient
for me to deny her petition, and would
notl have been taken by the court as
showing that she WAS grossly immoral
or wanting in moral integrity.
But Independently OF that question, l
| -. 80 ko
that there are other reasons why che is
not tho most suitable person. Ii that
was the only objection, | should be in
! mittedly something OF an invalid, has
difficulty in going about, has partially
lost the use Of her right arm. so that she
has difficulty in writing. Ths property
ia large ranching or farming property.
While, of course, it ia not supposed that
the guardian will see to the building of
the levees or the farming OF the ranch,
yet it is proper that the person should
be appointed who would be best quail
fed, or would. in some decree, oversee
that. II Mrs. Goodspeed (and | say that
che 10 entitled to no preference under
the law ie not a safe, fit and suitable
person, then following down, we come
to the sisterR. They, OF course, are unit
and unsuitable persons, in view OF
the evidence and the circumstances
in the case. | do not know what
showing may be made upon proper pro-
ceedings for sn accounting; but certain
ly upon the evidence here they do not
appear in c very enviable light. They
appear to have been living pom the
money OF their invalid sister, and there
is some evidence tending to show that
they tried to poison her mind against
her daughter. Passing from the sisters,
then, we come to the grandchildren,
and following, by analogy. the rule in
law where a person is entitled to be ap-
pointed administrator, or where q
guardian OF a minor is to be appointed,
think that the guardian of the children
OF Charles Pratt would be the most
suitable person. | say do not wish
this to be regarded as indicating the
final decision OF the csse; but it is a
matter that have thought over in the
progress of the case.
Coming down. then, to the question
OF continuance, do not think that
proceedings in investigations OF this ns-
ture are governed by the same rules
which govern the trial of actions at law
or suits in equity. think the court
should grant continuance for the pur-
pose of proving the character OF party
applying for letters of guardianship, if
anything is to be obtained by the ad-
mission OF the testimony. The testi-
mony of DR.. Hammond, while, OF course,
it would be cumulative, and while the
contestants have not shown any dill
gence. yet / think should grant con-
tinuance to give them an opportunity of
producing that evidence, ii the evi.
dence would be admissible when
produced. The reading OF the code
is that a physician shall not be
permitted to give any testimony as to
any information he has received and
which was necessary in order to treat
the patient. Certainly DR.. Hammond
could not testify that when he was
called by Mrs. Goodspeed that she stated
to him that she was enciente. He GER
tainly could not testify to that fact, and
certainly he could not testify to the fact
that he delivered her OF child l do
not think his testimony would be ad.
miseible, against her objections, if he
was produced.
Mr.. Campbell-Weil, certainly his
testimony as to the taking away OF the
child subsequently to another place
would be admissible.
The Court-I don't think 90. More
over, as | say, am not at present in
clined to appoint her anew. | do not
like to have any long continuance, and
have to cite DR.. Hammond for con tempt
for refusing to appear.
In respect to the testimony OF the cap
tain ofthe sailing vessel, that would be
proper rebutting testimony, and if he
can be brought in tomorrow or next day
l think Will be inclined to hear his
testimony. | do not think it ia very
material. 1t is true her testimony was
simply that the man who ran away with
her represented to her that he had a
minister and would have the ceremony
performed at O'Clock. In respect TO
the testimony as to the cabins, her iesti-
mony was that they had two cabins, one
for her and one for Mr.. Abecco. OF course
that testimony was admissible upon the
issue to which it WAS addressed, and
the testimony OF the captain that thev
did not have two cabins, | think would
be admissible as rebutlipg testimony.
The order of the court will be that the
case will be set for argument on Satur-
day at 10 o'clock, aud if, in the mean
time, you can produce the testimony OF
the captain OF the vessel and you desire
to do 40, you can have an opportunity
to do go either on tomorrow or Friday,
Ii the captain is here tomorrow will
hear his testimony. II he is not, l will
hear his testimony Oh Friday.