Fort Worth gazette. [volume] (Fort Worth, Tex.) 1891-1898, 1894-08-01
|HNsON IS UNCHANGED.
THINKS THE COURT HAS ERRED
IN ms DECISION.
Could Not Tnise Child From Its
NATURAL Guardian and Place IL
In the Custody OF nm Ar
tinclnI one.

q A.ttotrey pyI,n johnson, who repre-
inted Mrs Mcknight IN the Orphans
is lone case, whica has been the center
4. interest In the city for the past
eek. said he was not at all Hurp-
fiscd at the adverse decision OF the
! burt. He had bcsl expecting IL. All
Ao Indications were that hc would lose
"a III J, in the performance Of my
!. Professional duties to my child-olient
I lave becn ins,rmucntal IN laying be-
sre Tie public BY sworn testimony Of
hdics and gentlemen Of the highest
] lhnracter HE irIi factz OK tho analfs
Involved In this case. hais necom-
tnHhed some gurl for the public. and
want to thank those editors who
have so fnirly lpiD,'Ahad full account
x all the testimony" Attorney john
Ion believes judge Harris wrong IN his
IulinB erhe mothor Is by stat
dc the natural guardian OF her
Awn child. and had nor child In her
custody when this suit was brought to
knlto Il from her ana give IL 10 the
Evaporation called the Orphans Home.
ifhe Judge In this case had no power
& nor Jufisdldton to take the child
From To mother. lts natural guardian,
and to turn Il over 10 the corporation.
lbccause that would be removing
natural guardian and appointing an
othar guardian, which the district
Fudge has no power nor jurisdiction
IA, do. az that II vested by the cOnBtl-
antipn and the statute in the county
1court alone
eAsidu from this. the law IS 70
lplnin and 50 old that corporation
cannot be the guardian OF child. that
A In useless To cite single section In
.nupport OF Il.
in recent case decided by the
supreme court OF Texas In which
child had been partly reared by a
stranger II became question whether
the stranger could legally hold the
custody or the child as against the
father, and In that case our aupremr
court usea the following language.
There was no legal adoption OF the
child Maud by the plaintif. II was
sun subject to tho fathcrs control,
and he could legally reclaim 1t nj any
time az he did DO, The defendant
merely gave the plaintiff aud his wife
verbal permission to Keep and rear
tho child. There was no writing be-
tween the parties or declaration I'm
writinR OF the fact of adoption by the
plnintlf. as provided by article / or
the revised statutes Tho duty OF sup
porting and maintaining his child Ia
devolved by law upon the father, and
ne cannot rclogntc this duty TO any
ether person except authorized by law.
Untll there shall he further leglsln-
zion the only mode of which we are
aware whereby any person other than
n parent can become entitled 10 the
custody OF minor child " through
the fundamentally OF tho county court,
which may on application appoint guar
diane Of their persons OF minors. ns
well ns of their ostntes, or bind them
in apprenticeship. The fact that the
county courts are Invested by tho con-
Htitutlon and the laws with general
control over the persons of minors.
either for the purpose Of selecting guar
dams Of their persons. or Of binding
fhom In Apprenticeship would Indicate
TINT the lawmakers Intended that
through this court alone cSccpt In
divorce onscO can any other than a
pnront obtain the parental right to
the custody and control OF a minor
or TO his services"