New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1896-06-10
THE PERRINES EXILE ENDED.
CHANCELLOR MGILL REvERSES A DE-
CISION IN THE SLACK CASE.
THE FOSTER PARENTS OF THE TWO CHILDREN
IN DISPUTE MAY RETURN TO TRENTON AND

THE FOSTER PARENTS OF THE TWO CHILDREN
IN DISPUTE MAY RETURN TO TRENTON AND
THE CASE GETS NEW LEASE OF LIFE
Trenton, June (spec!aD-Chancellor McGll this
morning flied an opinion in the case Of Mary KcmDle
Slack OF Washington D. c. against Colonel Lewis
Perr.ne and Add.e slack Perrne OF this cry lhis
case 20 determine the guardianship OF Mrs. S.ach
children, has been pending for iong time IA inc
Court Of Chancery. Originally Mrs. SLACK hsu
petition IN the Court Of Chancery for hapeas
corpus alleging that her two children were IN the
custody CT Mrs Perrre and tina, she refuaed 20 oe-
liver them to her. Colonel Perrine and his wiie, IN
therr answers, aleg, that Mrs. Slack was not en-
titled the custody OF the children Tor the resoh
that the father, Captain William Siack' l. D A.
had before his death made last VIII ana testa-
rent in the District of Columbia giving the children
10 his sister Mrs. Perrine that the VIII had oeen
offered in the Probate Court Of Washington ana
that the matter was pending. II was alleged ago.
that Mrs Slack a woman oil immoral e"a'-
acter and was not entitled to the CUSTODY OF '''e
children for that reason.
A pos.ponement OF the'hear.ng in New-Jersey was
asked for by the counsel for Colonel Perrine ana
his wife on the ground that caveat had been nied
TO the will In the Probate Court in Washington ana
the matter pending This Nice-Ohe"cc"o'
Bird after hearing the argument, refused 70 grant,
Colonel Perrne aud his wife, by advice OF counsel
then took the children away from New-Jersey "
The case came to be heard and the children not
bcIng produced Mr.. Buchanan ard Mr.. RoOpns'
then the counsel for Colonel and Mrs. Perr'he' 'e-
fused TO act, and the case was heara eA p"i'o
Upon the Vice hancellors advice decree was
entered that the custody Of the children should De
In Mrs. Slack the mother, and that 0oio"e' iei
rne and his wife should be adJudged In contempt
commitment made out and was piaceo III ZIG
hands of the Sheriff Of Mercer County
The Perr!nes meanwhile had gone 10 Washing
ton with the children. Upon their arrival there
they were confronted by petition FOR haoeas COT
pus Instituted by Mrs. Slack. Dill was Hieo III
the Court OF Equity In the District Of Columbia, al
leglng the facts above stated, and asking that inc
Court should determine that the custody OF the
children should be. under the circumstances III
Mrs. Slack. Testimony was taken under the Dill III
equity "a to the character OF Mrs Slack ana the
testimony was OF a sensational character The case
created such q sensation that there was some de-
bate In Congress upon the question as 10 whether
or NOT the old law OF TIE District OF Columbia which
allowed persons 70 Will their children away, should
be abolished.
Upon hcarng the case Judge Hagrer decided that
under the circumstances the custody OF the children
should be in Mrs. Perrne An nppcabwas taken 10
the Court OF Appeals of the District Of Columbia
ard Judge Hasner's decision was reversed on the
g~ound INA; there Was a decree OF the Court OF
ccAancery OF New-Jerscy in existence and that they
We're bound ny bat decree; tnat that aeSree savG
was binding; that the Constitution OF the United
States provided thar fun crederce should be given
to the DEGREES and judgments 81 other states
During the tendency OF the Washington pro-
cecGng motion made by X. Y. Lndabury
and Chaunccy II. Bcasiey 10 tho Chancellor 70
aside the DEGREES IN the Court Of Chancery, as
improviGcntly granted. 1t Is upon this motion
that the Chancellor has written an opinion, which
nled to-day. He holds that the proceedings
were irregular IN this respect; that Nice-Chan-
ceor In this State undoubtedly has the power,
under the statute TO hear habeas corpus cases but
that ne can determine only as 20 whether the per-
s)as illegally restrained IN custody; that he
can determine further. and, as the decree in
this case has gone further and not only deter
mined that the children Of Mrs Slack were Illegally
restrained. but that they should be delivered 10
the custody OF the mother, tho decree ordering
the children 10 be delivered 20 Mrs Sack Is illegal;
that this act only can be done by the Chancellor;
He also decided that his own order was Illegal
and irregular, and upon these grounds he decides.
after writing elaborate opinion. quoting great
many cases tina; the lccrees made holding Colonel
and Mrs. Perr.ne III contempt and giving the GUS
tody o. the children to Mrs. Slack are illegal
The motion made 10 set aside the DEGREES has
therefore prevailed, ard the Perrines may now
return 10 their beautiful home in Green wood-avc,
which doubt they VIII do in a few days. This
puts a complexion on tho affairs In Washing
ton. The Courts decisions there were based en-
tircly upon the DEGREES OF the New-Jersey court
Now that the Ncw-Jersey court has reversed itself,
the Washington court may dispose OF the children
according 10 the provisions OF the will Of Captain
Slack, and IN this case Mrs Perrne would obtain
POSSESSION OF the children.