The Portland daily press., 1896-02-07


BY Hon. W. III. Clifford for Mr.. Brown
and Edward M. Rand ESQ. for Mrs.
Brown,
In the Supreme Court yesterday fore
noon before Judge Strout, was held
hearing to determine the custody of the
child, pending the trial of the.libel for d.
vorce brought by Nathan Clifford Brown
against his wife. This hearing was
caused by action of Mrs. Brown to OBJ
tain possession Of the child, which is now
in its fathers custody. Mr. Brown was
present with his counsel, Judge Symonds
and Hon. W. II. Clifford. Mrs. Brown
was present with her counsel, Eward M.
NJ. Rand, ESQ.
Mr.. Rand began proceedings by max
ng the opening Argument for the COM
plainant Mr.. Rand said that they were
there to present the question as to the
custody of the minor child OF Nat b an
Clifford Brown and Florence Cornelia
Brown, pending the libel for divorce
brought by the husband.
Then Mr.. Rand read tho libel, stating
that Nathan Clifford Brown was mar.
ried to his wife in Paris and had been
travelling great deal in Europe since
then, but had frequently returned to
Portland and considered this city their
home.
The libellant had always conducted
himself as a faithful and affectionate
husband, but the libellee had been guilty
Of cruel and abusive treatment of her
husband, using violent and bitter Ian
guage to him both in public and private
and had even used physical violence to-
ward him. This had so distressed him
as to endangar his health.
For the last year and half the minor
child has been in the custody of Mr..
Brown.
The answer of Mrs. Brown denies that
her husband has always conducted him
self as faithful and affeotlonate. He had
even threatened and at times used vio-
lence toward her. His conduct had
caused her great grief and distress.
She denies the cruel treatment Of her
husband as declared by him. Up to
June last she had lived with her husband
but at that time she says he deserted her
and surreptitiously obtained possession of
he child, which is now seven years old.
Mr.. Rand said that in the
past the father had the right of
custody of his minor children. But re-
Gently in connection with the claim of
equal rights for women, there has been a
feeling that the claims of parents are
equal. IN 1895 the Maine legislature
passed law recognizing the joint right
OF the father and mother to the custody
Of minor children. Therefore as to the
custody of the minor child pending the
libel, the decree rests in the Judgment of
the court. Neither is there any right of
appeal.
Whatever decree is made should be gov
erned largely by what is best for the
child.
Now as to facts. First, the minor child
is a girl of seven years of age. For the
last seven months this girl has been in
the exclusive custody of the father, to
the extent that out of 1853 hours of the
W6Sh OLA AoAtS III UIO OdI0 VI ul0 CIllu
have been doled out to the mother and
1852 hours retained by the father.
The mother now asks the custody pend
ing the libel. She is not here to redress
any wrong nor of her own motion. She
is brought here ty the summons of her
husband, who accuses her of cruel and
abusive treatment and desires that the
Court shall kick her out int the world.
without her sole comfort, the CUSTODY of
her child.
She should have the custody of her
child pending that libel When will
that libel be triedS 1t is for the husband
to determine that. Given the custody
of the child, the object of his libel is par
TALLY obtained, and that libel may never
be tried. Therefore the mother should
have the child, pending the libel. because
it is for the father to determine how long
that time shall be.
Mr.. Rand dwelt at some length upon
| the special fitness of the mother to care
for little girl.
| There is another question. Mrs. Brown
makes pea that she is without proper
means of support for herself and the care
of the child and makes appliction for
proper means from the husband.
Mr.. Rand said that his client is not en-
tirely without income. She has an an
nual income now amounting to $50.
He had been informed by Mr.. Browns
counsel that his income Is about $25OO.
Mrs. Brown will have to bear the legal
expense Of the trial, and if it is hard
fought, as it certainly will be on her
part, those expenses will naturally lessen
her principal.
Since they had been separated her hus.
band had paid her the sum of $40 every
four weeks, making the sum of $9l(
every year. That payment rests upon
his entire free will, and may be suspend
ed by him at any time that he pleases.
Since this contest in court will not tend
to decrease the antagonism between the
parties, Mr.. Rand thought it best te
bring this application for an allowance
for herself and minor child while in hel