The evening times., 1895-12-18

Justice Hagner, presiding in equity court
No. 2. rendered a decision this morning In
the cause OF Slack VS.. Perrine, confirming
the right OF the testamcntary guardian
to the custody of the children, and denying
the entire contention Of Mrs, Slack under
the proceedings before him as to her right
to possession.
The decision of the New Jersey vice chan
cellOr in New Jersey in, The habeas corpus
case was declared to be OF no effect, and
an Injunction was ordered to Issue, as
prayed for, rest lining all the parties in
interest from prosecuting any proceedings
here or elsewhere in any of the matters in
controversy in the case until final deter
mination Of the will contest now pend
ing in the probate court.
Under his order Mrs. Slack is to have
free access to her children, and the guar
dian is restricted from doing or saying
anything, or permitting it to be done,
that Will tend to prejudice the children
against the mother.
LENGTHY DECISION.
The decision was very lengthy, requiring
over an hour and Lalf for delivery. The
justice referred with some feeling to the
sad features OF the case, involving lnno-
cent children, almost arrived at an age
wien such matters will attract their at
tention, and said that IL Las phases that
provoke the inquiry once before made.
HAS this man sinned, or his father that
he has become bljDd?'' He deprecated the
Introduction of Sd much that tends TO
darken the future of these innocent little
ones, whose interests, he said, were the
real issue in the case, and his remarks were
In the nature of condemnatOry comment
upon the multiplicity of such charges J n al
cases similar to this.
Both parties to the controversy were rep
resented by counsel.
After an exhaustive review OF all the
antecedent proceedings, Justice Hagner
held that the statute OF Charles the Second,
enacted 235 years ago, giving the father
the right to dispose by will oil the custody
of his children, is the uId,sputed law OF
the District.
A contention, he said, against its opera
tiOn could not be maintained. nor was one
made. On the contrary. there are dect-
sions distinctly confirming its operation,
and counsel in thiscase had attacked it more
upon the alleged inhumanity OF It's pro-
visions than upon other grounds.
There have been, he said. nine instru-
ments admitted to probate, without ques-
tion, in the District, which were drawn
unucr that law. II has the same force as
though enacted by tnc legislature, ana IL Is
not the function OF the courts, he said in
substance, to set aside statute because
OF any fancied or real injustice that might
result from its enforcement. He. in effect,
questioned the assertion OF counsel that
II was barbarous law.
HABEAs CORPUS INAPPLICABLE.
Final disposition of the children, he held.
cannot be adjudicated under writ OF
habeas corpus. The object of such writ is
to guarantee liberty, not to adjust domestic
relations.
In the light of the facts before him, Justice
Hagner said. it would require the ciearest
proof that William IL. Slack was unfit to
determine as to the future OF his children to
induce him 70 any other conclusion than that
reached.
The rights of a testamentary qua rdian,
he held to be paramount TO those of the
mother. and TO rule otherwise than as he
did would be to express lack of confidence
in the fitness OF the guardian or distrust
OF the validity of the will He could do
neither.
There had been nothing in any OF The al
legations TO show that Mrs. PerriBe was
not Il proper person to retain control OF
the children.
After arguing that the consideration OF
this case forced upon him one of the most
unpleasant duties he had ever been called
upon to perform, Justice Hagner announced
his conclusions as stated.