Shenandoah herald. [volume] (Woodstock, Va.) 1865-1974, 1895-02-22
An Interesting Case.

able interest and the sympathies OF our
people we're generally enlisted upon the
side of the grandparents. The following
is the opinion Of the court and will prove
of interest to many of our readers.
W. C. Ruhl vs.. WieGand Ruhl and wife.
Writ of Habsas Corpus.
Opinion Of The Court
The general rule As reco Qnizsd in this
county, and rs expressly established by
statute In this state, is that, 1.-THE father
is entitled to the custody and control Of
his infant child"
| This general rule Of law is predicated
not so much upon the superior right OF
the father, a. upon the trauscendent right
of the infant to receive from its response
ole progsnitor that nurture, care and
training necessary to produce in it that
! physical and mental development that
shall best prepare 1t for the battle of life
when thrown upon its own resources In
the world, as, sooner or later, II must be.
In the very nature OF things this 10 q
right of the infant basO0 upon the highest
moral ground. This right can ordinarily
be best subserved by giving to the person
upon whom this high moral duty deyOlyes
the right TO the legal custody Of the in
FAINT. Hence the general rule OF law, a
rule intended rather TO enforce the rights
OF the child, than to preserve the rights
of the parent.
As is the case with all general rules
adopted to promote the welfare Of human
lty, this general rule must, of necessity,
operate hsrahlY in number of individual
cases, and to defeat the very object its
adoption WAS intended to secure.
Generally in Instances of this character,
the subject of the exceptional harshness
of the law must suffer the consequences
ensuing from the exceptional attendant
circumstances surrounding it, IN order to
maintain inviOlate, the rule which best
gu bseryes the interest of the whole.
But so tender has been the cOnsiders-
tiOn Of the cOsr;s Of this State fer the
happiness and wtIfare of each child within
its borders, during the tender years Of in
fancy, aud the time of development Of
that physical and mental maturity so
necessary to prepare it 10 meet the re-
qurements of its subsequent. self-depen-
dent existence; that they have net heal
tated to set aside the general rule and
even override the express statnts of this
State. when, under the peculiar circum
stances of the case, the interests Of the in-
FAINT would be best Subservod thereby. IA
in the cases Of Merrett vs.. Swimley and
wife, and Black vs. Coffee, both reported
in - Va. Repts. and other cases there
Cited.
The frat exception to the general
rule is where the father is not a fiji or
suitable person to have charge and con-
troll Of the infant.
The court Is of the opinion that this
ground of exception does net exist in the
case now under consideration.
Tho father, here, 80 far ss shown by
the evidence, Is a sober, industrious man,
" no seems TO entertain real and pa
rental affection tor the child, possession
which is sought through the medium OF
this cOurt.
The only other ground Of exception
necessary to be considered in this case ls
whether there was voluntary dedication
or REIMBURSEMENT of the infant in ques-
ton by the father, the petitioner, to the
parental grandparents, the defen dants,
for such nOnrishment care and training
as it would have been entitled TO have
received from the father if its care aud
custody bad been retained by the pc
titioner.
The facts of this case bearing on this
point may be summed mp as follows: W..
c. Ruhl, the petitioner, was, in the winter
of 1856. living in the town of New Mar
ket, IN this county, at the home of bis
wifs's parents, his family consisting OF
himself wife and the child IN question,
then a babe of some nine months Of age.
Petitioner was working in said town IN
the shop of his father Wlegand Rnhl,
who, with bis wife and younger children
lived about two miles from New Market
where be still residos) in comfortable
home. Some time in January, OF that
year petitioners wife died. With CEN
sent of his mother petitioner then re-
moved the infant child 10 the home OF his
parents, who agreed to receive and care
for it. Petitioner continued to work
with his father, and made his home, in the
main with his parents, until the latter
part of April of that year, and seemed to
be much interested in and attached to tie
child. He then lett, to reside IN Column
bus, Ohio, leaylng the child in the caro-
and custody, more especially, OF the
grandmother There Is some discrepancy
10 the evidence as to the exact words
passing between the mother and son as to
the child, on the morning of bis departure,
az to whether it was the intention Of the
father to relinqnish absolutely, the con-
troll of the child and its rearing TO the
grandmother without restriction IS TO
time, or only temporarily. The cOnrt
! ~ -, Ia lfvbf Of -
subsequent conduct of the parties, and
all the attendant circumstances, bearing
upon the question of intent.
1t il strenuously insisted by counsel for
petitioner that the intention Of perma-
nsnt REIMBURSEMENT is negatived by the
continued manifestation of interest in,
aud solicitude for the welfare Of his child,
as evidenced by the frequent little gifts,
aud tokens of affection from time to time
hent BIZ the father to the child as brought
out in the evidence.
This, it is admitted, shows that the
petitioner was not devoid of that feeling
for, and interest In the welfare of his
child which is inherent in the breast Of
of every right minded parent, and for
which the petitioner is to be commendC d q.
lbb IL bbtulb ~ llc tOulb ludb AhNTO
manifestations of interest In, and solicit
tude for the welfare Of the child by the
father Is not inconsistent with the dele
cation of the care, clstOdy and training
Of the child to another, especially when
that other is the grandmother OF the
child, and the trusted and revered mother
Of the parent. UoquestlOuably the care,
custody and training of the child, and the
coat of Its rearing have been voluntarily
left by the Petitioner with the defendants
for the period of nearly nine years.
But it is insisted that in the meantime,
and only about IS months after the de-
parture of the father. a demand as made
for the possession of the child, on the &C.
casion of the visit OF the petitioner to his
parents in the autumn OF 1887, with his
second wife, then bride. II 10 claimed
that at this time he, or If not himself, his
wife, for them. demanded the child OF the
grandmother. From all the circumstances
~ presented to the )Ourt, 1t is constrained
to the opinion that there was no intention
on the part of the petitioners at the time
Of making this visit, TO demand and take
back with them, the child, but that what
was said on the subject at that time, was
no. formal demand, bnt merely sng-
Restion made during the heat of a con-
| ,rr,rrirO NJ If apnfbar Of