The evening times., 1895-11-30


Therefore Decision Was Postponed.
The proceedings under the writ of iabea.
corpus issued yesterday against Col. ant
Mrs. L. Perrine, in behalf OF A.rs. Mars
kiniball Slack. in a suit ins;ituted foi
recovery or the custody Of the latter's we
children. were bad this morning before
Justice Mcconias. in circuit court No. g
and added another somewhat sensational
chapter to the celebrated litigation over
two wills and the attending collateral cir
cunistances.
After full discussion by counsel. the pa
pers in the case having been previously con
sidered by the court. counsel for Mrs. Slack
asked first that the proper return be made
to The writ, and that pending proceedings
In a concurrent court the mother be given
The custody OF her children. requiring bond
in any sum deemed proper.
The interests OF Mrs. Perrine were repre-
sented in a suggestion that the children be
left where they are. with their guardians
under the will. under marstafs care II
need be. and that tue expense OF such sur
yeillance would be promptly paid. il re-
Guired. Pcstponcment was asked for only
QDtil lu Just utt
court are concluded.
The decision OF the court was that pro-
ceedings under the writ must be pos t
poned until December 4. or until further
order OF court, pending the hearing in
Justice HagDer's court, and that the chill
dren shall remain in the custody of their
present guardian under the will.
Justice McComas said he would receive
suggestions as TO the proper safeguards
TO prevent the removal or the children rrcin
this jurisdiction, and that such steps should
be taken as would insure their appearance
when required by this court.
Mr.. Carlisle, for Mrs. Perrine, said any
obligation imposed by counsel on the other
side would be promptly met, aud IL was
finally concedcd that Mrs. Slack shall have
free access TO the children between the
hours of 2 ard 4 O'Clock each day, and
Judge Wilson's guarantee that they would
be In court on the day named was accepted.
DREW A CROWD.
This case attracted to the courtroom
a considerable crowd, and among the
spectators was u number OF well-kDown at
torneys who temporarily laid aside their
own affairs and dropped in to witness
the proceedings.
An important insurance case, but, under
the circumstances. wearfsome one, was
first called The spectators fmpatiently
awaited its conclusion.
Mr.. Calderon Carlisle, whu disclaimed
connection with the case as counsel, first
addressed the court. stating that the defend
ants under the writ were then in the office
OF Carlisle & johnson, within the reach
OF the court He recited the particulars
I'm all prior proceedings, and then said that.
in view OF the action OF Justice Hagner, In
the probate curt, tn issuing a restraining
l-,lio vod hat IN. IN.
the writ of one court might be construed as
of the other tribunal.
The coDsummatiOn wasnot reached with
out exhaustive discus sion. Mr.. Carlisle
was seconded by Judge Wilson. and these
gentlemen argued that the offer to guar
aDtee the presence Of the children had
been prepared prior to the service OF
the writ, and had been in court since yes
terday
In response to the query Of the court.
Mr. Carlisle stated that there was not the
slightest probability that the children would
De removed from the courts custody. He
iaid that application for Instructions un-
Ter the two orders had been asked OF Chief
Justice Bingham. but his honor had de-
lined to intcrpose. upon the grounds that
he order of Justice Hagncr was still pend
ng and the cause Hereunder not yet de-
ermined.
RETURN SHOULD BE MADE.
Attorneys Hamilton and wor.hington
Mrs. Slack, each in lei City
Iddress, in which the contention was made
hat return should be made to the writ.
/ part OF the requirement being to show
ause why they still hold the children in
-iclation of an order OF a New Jersey court.
,either Mr.. nor Mrs. Perrine is in this
ourt. nor Eave they produced the children
lere, Mr.. Hamilton stated.
They should now be held to be in contempt
md served with a writ OF attachment.
The court interposed at this point with the
statement that the parties were all In the
chamber adjoining the courtroom, and
were. to all intents and purposes, under the
courts charge.
Mrs. Slack sought and obtained an order
n a New Jersey court. Mr.. Hamilton de-
Jared. requiring the custodians to show
ause, and that in violation of a known
rider they fled from their homes and came
ere as fugitives to impede the course of
ustice.
Mr.. worthington followed the same line
( argument. Asked by the court if he be-
eved there was any danger that the chill
rem would be removed from this juris-
ictiou. Mr.. Worthington said, in QUOTA
ion: =. The only lamp to my feet is the
ght OF experience These custcdians have
led from one court, and il they choose they
lay at any time escape from this iuris-
ictiou, and this mother, the natural pro-
ector of her own offspring. may be next
ompelled to seek them In California"
Mr.. Worthington added to his former
eciaration that Mrs. Slack is unwilling
, trust to the integrity of the Perrines. and
nat she expected the court to determine
Ter claim to custody.
The cause before Justice Hagner has
nj, c,a ~ ht,tu lap ho har
nder the temporary restraining rule and
rder obtained by the grandfather stopping
70 roceedinEs until the issues in the orphans
ourt are decided. These WILDE hea rd next |
tuesday,.
Justice McComas had regard to this
rder, made by a court with concurrent |
when he decided in favor of
ostponing.