The evening times., 1896-06-03

The court of appeals, In an elaborate
opinion, written by Justice Shepard, has re-
versed the Judgment of Judge McComas,i in
disnissng the habeas corpus proceedings
begun by Mrs. Mary Kemble Slack to re-
cover her two little girls from the guur-
dianship of Col. LIE wis and Harriet Addie
Slack Perrine OF Trenton, N. j. and has or
dered tue hearing of the petition to be
continued in the court below.
The opinion was filed after the courts
closed yesterday afternoon, Justice Shepard
sending it to the city hall by special mes
scnger. Justice Norris concurred in the
opinion. Chief Justice Alvey disseDted,
So ying he thought ''the order dismissing the
application for a writ OF habeas corpus
should be affirmed" and concluding that he
would file reasons for the dissent here
after.
Probably no more important case. In
voiying as this does, j parents right to
will away the guardianship OF his children.
ever occurred In local Jurisprudence. The
history of the litigation is familiar to every
reader of The Times.
THE SEPARATION.
William Hall Slack aud his wife were
both popular in Washington's social CIR
cies. The husband died while the suit
brought by his wife for alimony was pend
ing against him. The two had been living
apa RI for some time before the husbands
death. While he was visiting in New .!er-
sew, at the home OF his sister, the little
girls were permitted to make him visit.
They were detaiued there indefinitely.
petition for a writ of habeas corpus
was heard, aud finally granted to the
mother by New Jersey court, but the
Perrines were accused OF fleeing the
courts Jurisdiction. and brought the chill
dreu to Washington.
In his will Mr. Slack created his sister,
Mrs. Perrine, the guardian of his daughters
The will was contested, sustained and pro-
bated.
When proceedings for the writ of habeas
corpus, taking the children out OF Mrs
Perrine's hands, were begun in the Dis
trict courts the sister-in-law flied an elab-
crate answer, corresponding closely with
tue one she had filed in New Jersey, when
action was begun there.
She said the little girls preferred 10 stay
with her and it was To their benefit to do
So. Charges of intemperance. profanity,
lcwdness and adultery We're heaped against
the mother.
Specified allegations were made OF some
OF the charges and the names of other proIni-
uent people were brought into the suit.
SHE DENIED ALL.
Mrs Slack filed an answer 10 the state
all OF the charges. She strengthened this
answer by arfidavits of friends.
on February 5. last, Justice McComas
overrucd the demurrer made by Mrs.
Slack, and discharged the writ OF habeas
corpus that had already been granted.
Ia beginning the comments On the case
the court held that it was unne cessary for
them to decide whether the statute of
12 Charles, 2, under which 1t was claimed
the father could will away the guardian
ship of his children, was in eifec ct in the Dis
| trict. The decision OF the case as pre-
| sented on the record turns on the effect
| that must be given the New Jersey de-
| cree, they said.
| The litigation began with the appel
| lant'S petition for writ of habeas corpus
| The appellees were them in New Jersey
aud 50 were the children. The rights OF
| the appellecs were there denied, and the
| custody given to Mrs. Slack. The prin-
| ciple OF res Iudicata, or the binding power
| of the decree OF the New Jersey court or
the local court, was believed to lie estab
| lshed. Authorities in support OF the view
were cited al length.
OBJECT OF THE WRIT.
The great object OF the writ of habeas
corpus, said the court, was to release al
persons illegally restrained of their lib
crty. In the case of infants the processes of
the wnt necessarily became widened and
| extended. These were not only to be re
| leased from improper custody, but to be
placed in proper permanent control.
| The doctrine of res judicata applied witt
stronger reason to the decree in question
| here, because the court rendering ii had
| i'll addition to concurrent jurisdiction with
| the courts-at-law in habeas corpus, gen
| eral jurisdiction over infants.
1T is well settled that the decree may
| be given the same effect in other iuris
dictions that it would have in New Jer
sey.''
| several pages of the opinion are next
! devoted to showing that the New Jersey
| court had jurisdiction in the matter under
| its hands, and authorities galore were
4 cited TO show the basis of the decision.
Closing. the opinion said: "It follows
| necessarily that the Judgment appealed
\ from must be reversed. with coGts to the
1 appellant. and the cause remanded to tn,
| court from whence it came. with directions
| TO sIstain the demurrer to the respondent.
| answer and return. and to proceed with the
cause in conformity with this opinion
| And it is SO ordered"