Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-08-01
FppHARS' HOME GETS ROSA
Is WHAT JUDGE HARRIS
HA Ruled YESTERDAY.
,,e Home as n Benevolent
'r~ ,,ton Is Competent TO he
80 .,,,rn of the Mincr-ohiid
I'D be raisen Legally.

{. ,.clsIon Of Judge Harris In the
~ Mcknight habeas corpus case
20 'Ssred Yesterday morning at .
= ~ ~ M seventeenth district court.
'' Z a the mother Is denied the
IA j her child, and It Is returned
~ y .,ro IL the orphans Home The
.. n Is as follows 49,.
i'.1 district Court Of Tarrant
p Wy Tsxas, eX-parte Rosa NC
|ppy' n,.lnion OF the Court nave
fisn ~ me authorities that We're
|kta y, 10 me in this case, and
|AfeDssr over my notes OF the testl-
" ,s6ioh I took rather iully.
|il mi there are four questions
|e'issss tsrnlned IN passing upon TINS
y ~ drst one Is. Eas the court
III 10 grant this writ and hear
|la~g ana dispose Of the partyY :.
L M enurt order a child into the
L w IL n corporation The next
Peg Hons are as TO the fitness of
Il Hss,ar and OF the respondent TO
Ky c,ist0dy OF this child.
4 Al moi think that the law win
rsnce to what should pc done IN
of mis- kind, as 1t Is contained IN
s,stntes. IL as explicit as IL ought
Il BEFORE the amendment 10 the
.,,ntion OF 1891, the writ of habeas
IN. bsinr within the Jurisdiction or
II district court and the county
4. and the county court having
~ Jurisdiction in probate mat
4 and authority TO appoint guar
and TO issue such writs as are
',afv 10 enforce Its Jurisdiction, 1t
IN view that If jurisdiction We're
snr in either court It was wanting
Ine district court, but my conclu-
ma Judgment was that even the
III then had Jurisdiction; that
ronrts had n. There are some
Isaeations IN the Constitution as
'sded In 1891. This clause is adk
iaThat the district court shall
I general original jurisdiction over
Il fases OF action whatever. for
n a remedy or jurisdiction is not
rlied by law or this Constitution"
would bring us to the question:
y there a remedy and n turisdlc-
pfovided by law and by the Com
3s,ion outside OF this general clause?
|3bars was. we do not have to invoke
Il Al. a means of giving jurisdiction
liz district court Another amend-
Il Of the Constitution, made at che
y time was this, that whereas the
f Constltutlon provided that the dis
court should issue writs Of ha-
corpus "in the following cases"
words lin the following cases" Is
lnated by the amendment, and it
Ids there unlimited. that the dis
court has authority TO issue writs
abeas corpus. and under that. so
Is the Institution of proceeding
noerned. think the district court
authority to act. There has been
bet OF the legislature since that
that would Indicate that the lcgis-
h believed that In actions OF this
Of Of similar character 10 this,
county court had no jurisdiction,
~ authority 10 act, because 1t Is
led in the act Of 1898 that upon
eulion Of any citizen or citizens to
county judge OF the county where
4, hey reside. setting forth that n
M person or persons other than
nsiural guardian have In charge q
" boy child or children, under
sAin q age, to the injury Of such
Or ehlldren, the county Judge may
4 provided In said law. That linz
70 children under IL years OF
nd 10 cases where the party IS
o'isssion OF some person other
he natural guardian, and IL was
sify 10 enact law to authorize
1aaiy Judge TO proceed in cases nf
ut; and that law would Justify
asftnce that IL wns the oninion
legislature that the comfy CONT
x have nuthoritv ia oct In nnv
MS, and only had authority Ia
that case hv rooson
y fnct that sucb a.
Is eXpressly oI,,an h,. ~
.irie IN that act. ana tbot u,bere
ia was ovsr 10 ,," 80 M Miielc
W Y was IN tho possession OF n
nas ought not 10 have ii. even
ne natural guardian. that the
wurt could not act. IL that is
i'ler construction of the author
ne county court. then If would
~ limited than I had believed n
ahd Of course, this net Of the
y 7lare Is not conclusive tl,ou that
sau not binding. and / am still
70 the opinion that nof,yifh.
mat apparent lifnitation or
aliion Of a Limitation 'u unon ,S Ur
wy Of the county com court u tS1t me me
courts do have 0 9utSor rnat tne
IN cases OF thai I Hp,ne riSs,c YET 81
suHty court; but I } dn not hoiio, OF
q ssause such r. the case tbersTo,.,
sirlet court has NOT i,,r inrgiore
under the ramovo1 ~ ~, ii...i''
upon the Issuance OF tbe vii IN, ~
corpus that / have reSer wlle t OF
srd'r the implleatIon I of re TO-
q enlargement or o,, H. Jr,
alhsr provisions Of me eu cnnati
es,t has jurisdiction "i''N 'he ais
s, here Is this question no oro
o'ed with, which VAN Vas y, we ear are +,
ss Presented by counsel m Jaf sn,. ~
~ That concedIn n,,S1 mo- d4r re-, re-
natural ruay6,o men NIL u we
court powerless ' IN AZ ai ,,.S,i, :.
Hr Ih that obstructloSS,' , Win Whe H. II
A-lYi Is there Win tnat