Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1894-09-28
SUPERIOR COURT.
September Term, Judge oliver G. Hall, Pre-.
siding.

l.. L. CARLETON, County Attorney.
W. S. CHoATE, Clerk.
F. A. SMALL, Stenographer.
THURSDAY, Sept. 27.
Spaulding and wife VS.. Woodbury.. This
case was resumed this morning. The child
in question, when 3 weeks old, was
placed by the defendant, its mother, with
Spaulding and his wife to board. The
mother paid for its keeping about a year
and half and then ceased making anv
payments. The Spauldings continued to
Keep the child until June 2, 1894, when il
was little over years of age. The
mother then demanded the posse ssion, and
the Spauldings having become greatly ,
attached to it, treating it as one of their
own, resisted, and Mrs. Woodbury. brought
writ of habeas corpus to recover posses 4,
sion. The court then rendered the follow !
ing finding:
"On full hearing and argument,
of counsel 1 find that both the /!
plaintiff and respondents are of such char
acter and habits as to well care for the
child, and that its best interests would be
equally well provided for by either; there
fore conclude that before any decree touch
ing its further custody, the respondents
should be paid for the board and materials
for the seven years since payment was
made, computed to amount to the sum of
S548. The case is continued until Thurs
day, 7th inst. On June the following was
entered upon the record of the court 1.-THE
plaintiff being unable to pay the amount
adjudged due for the board and care of the
child, no decree is made as to its future care
and custody. The child is permitted to
return to the respondents il she so
chooses, the mother to have full access
to the child at proper times and
on proper occasions, the child to
be permitted to visit the mother and
brother for the space of at least four weeks
each year during vacation of the public
schools in the district where she attends;
tae plaintiff to make no effort to secure the
child excepting by legal process" The
child chose to return to the Spauldings and
did in fact return. Last Saturday Mr..
Spauding brought the child to its mother in
this city to visit until Sunday night, the dis
trict school being in session. Upon calling
for her both mother and child had disap-
peared, and up to this time the child has
not been found, although the mother re-
turIed home Wednesday morning, where
she was found and arrested by the officer on
precept from this court. The petitioners
complain that Mrs. Woodbury. has violated
the decree of the court in taking pos
session Of the child without legal
process. 1t is believed by them that
the child has been carried by the
mother beyond the limits of the State and
placed in some Catholic asylum. The
counsel for Mrs. Woodbury. filed a demurrer
to the petition, claiming that there was no
legal decree of court on which judgment
for contempt could be based; that under
habeas corpus proceedings no decree could
be made regulating the future movements
of the child. but simply to restore to liberty.
They expected the demurrer to be over
ruled and to this they would take excep-
tons and carry the questions to the law
court. Counsel for the petitioners urged
immediate action, else it might be impossi-
BILE to recover the child. She had been
taken away by force and through fraud and
the respondent should be compelled to pro-
duce her in court.
The court then said:
This is a novel question, and one have
carefully looked at. Gases of this sort are
very rare. l have acted upon the princi-
pies that find governing cases generally
where children are brought before courts
for disposal either under habeas corpus or
divorce proceedings, where it is invariably
the custom of the court to look after the
best interests of the child. And with the
best light had made the decree which |
did, and am very strongly of the opinion
that the decree is good in law, and that
Mrs. Woodbury. is now in contempt and
should be punished for taking the child out
of the custody Of these petitioners in the
way described in the complaint. | think 1t
is u very bold proceeding on her part, and
exposes her to punishment. But all that
can do here is to override this demurrer. l
cannot take away the legal right of parties
to exceptions here, however much l think
B the respondent in the case deserves punish
ment. So do not see but the petitioners
must submit to the exceptions, and have the
question presented to the law court as to
whether the decree is valid one
upon which could be based a judgment for
contempt In the mean time of course the
petitioners will have several ways OF pro-
cedure to them to gain possession of the
child.
The respondent gave bail in the sum of
$500 to prosecute her exceptions, and ABIDE
the decision of the court.
Emerline +. Sanford vs.. Louis Ii. San
ford. A. NJ. Goddard for plaintiff; Beane
& Beane for defendant. This is an action
to recover the sum OF $500 and small
amount of interest amounting to about Sll.
The plaintiff is an aged lady, living IN Man
ester, and the defendant is her nephew,
until recently residing in Californis. She
claims that she sent to him., in California
$500, eight yerrs ago, to invest in mortga-
ges, and that after time he prevailed upon
her to invest it in real estase; that after
q while she demanded that the
property be sold and her
money returned to her, and that he Sold
but has until this time failed to comply with
her demand for the principal, though he mas
sent her interest down to December, 1873:
The defence is that the investment proved
to be hard one eventually, and for the
sake of full settlement they both agreed
that he should pay her 10 per cent. for the
money as long as she lived, and she was 10
have no clsim upon him except for the IN
terest. The testimony on the part OF the
defence was unfinished when court ad-