Daily Kennebec journal. [microfilm reel] (Augusta, Me.) 1870-1975, 1895-05-02

petition brought by Williamson & Bur-
leigh for an order of court to have Mr..
and Mrs Charles A. Spaulding adjudged
guilty OF contempt of court in refusing. on
the afternoon of April 30 last, to permit
the petitioner to visit and see her child.
which, it will be remembered, the Spauld-
ihgs have been made the legal custodians
OF, with The right of the mother to visit
and see it. The respondents were repre-
sented by Whitehouse & Fisher.
1t appeared from the testimony, in
Which there was but. little conflict
as TO tho material parts, that
Mrs. Woodbury. went with team
to the home of the Spauldings at the
dine alleged in the petition, accompanied
by Nellie Kellette, and that Mrs. Spauld-
ing seeing them coming, locked the door,
being in the house alone with the little
girl and two other small children; that
Mrs Woodbury. raped at the door and
Mrs. Spaulding raised the window and
Mrs Woodbury. asked to see Maud and
the petitioner says she was refused, but
this Mrs. Spaulding denied
1t appeared, however, that Mrs.
Spaulding called to the little girl,
who wasupstairs, to come down
and she came, but persisted that she
did not want to see her mother; that the
child came along to tho window, which
was partly raised, and stood behind the
sash curtain, and there told her mother
that she did not want to see her, that the
two women engaged in a war of words
and personalities, and near the close of it
Mr.. Spaulding came into the yard from a
neighbours, but no demand was made up
on him to see the child.
Mrs. Woodbury. on cross examination
declared that she was still trying
to get her child and that she
would never give up, while she lived,
trying to have her child brought up in the
Catholic church, and to be good girl;
that she would not defy the laws of God
to get her but did not know but she would
the laws of man.
Mrs Kellette testified that she
stood as god mother when the
little girl was chriStened, and stood re
sponsible for her, and if she was not
treated well or was not being brought up
in the Catholic faith, by the laws of the
church she could go and take her. that il
the child was not educated and brought
up in the church she was the one response
bic for it, This was the law of the
church and it was by the laws of the
church she went.
Counsel for the parties briefly addressed
the court in support of their respective
positions, counsel for the respondents ask
ing for change in the former decree so
that the mother should not be permitted
to visit the child, and counsel for the
petitioner that it might be amended SO as
to allow the child to visit her mother in
this city.
Judge Hall in rendering his decision
said:
After very careful hearing Of the
parties in this case on haheas corpus pro
ceedingsI determined that the inter, st of
this child required that it should remain
with its present custodians, Mr.. and Mrs.
Spaulding. But I did give to her mother
the privilege of visiting it and also al
lowed the child to visit the mother. That
was the decree that was entered. Ad-
vantage was taken of that decree by Mrs.
Woodbury. to get possession of the girl and
secrete it,
The mother was brought into
court on proceedings for contempt similar
abouts of the child In the meantime the
evidence showed that she had been taken
| in the night time away into the country
and put with an utter stranger, and from
there she was taken in the night to Massa-
chusetts, and from place to place in that
state, and was only returned after Mrs.
Woodbury. was compelled by Imprisonment
for contempt to disclose her whereabouts.
She now still persists herein open court,
and under oath, that her efforts are to be
continued in the same direction to get
possession of this child, which is a clear
and very fragrant contempt of court. And
1t has appeared here, moreover, that the
person whom she took with her when she
went to visit this child, who says she is
its godmother claims that, under the
laws of her church, she has right to see
that this child is brought up under the
instruction of the church, and If it is not,
to take possession of it.
Under circumstances like these it
would be the utmost folly FOR
this court to decree that the child
should again be placed in her power by
visiting the mother, and it is my opinion
also that it is entirely unsafe and incon-
sistent with the interest of the child, and
inconsistent with peace between these two
families to allow the petitioner to visit the
child.
1t certainly is not for the interest
of the child, under all the circumstances
of this case. that it should DO placed in
jeopardy again, under the statements that
have been made here by the mother, and
| feel it my duty so to change this decree
that the child may now be absolutely kept
from any interference of the petitioner
1t is due to the dignity of the court, to say
nothing about the question OF justice, as
regards this child and family and shall
therefore change the decree accordingly.
So far as this petition is concerned, the
RESPONDENTS in the former proceeding In
which this decree was made, were MT ana
Mrs. Spaulding. Both were custodians
of the child, and the law gives the nus
band, the man, the control OF his house
hold. No demand was made upon MI.
Spaulding to see the child, whatever may
have occurred between Mrs. Woodburs
and Mrs. Spaulding. He came there be
fore the interview was closed, or about th'
time and no permission was asked OF him