Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-01-23
SERIOUS CHARGES
Reopening of the Entire Slack Sean
dal Today.
MRS. PERRINE'S ANSWER FILED
Direct Accusations Against Mrs.
Sacks Morality.
HABEAS CORRESPONDENTS


continued to no day certain, for the reason
that Mrs. Slack's counsel were unable to
say Just when they would be prepared to
so on with it. The children were produced
in court, but Judge McComas stated that
it would not be necessary to do so hereaf-
ter.
The Old Case.
When Mrs. Slack filed her petition last
November she charged that her children
were unlawfully detained and restrained
of their liberty by taesr aunt. Mrs. Harriet
Addie Slack Perrine, and the latter's hus-
band, Mr.. Lewis Perrine. a few days later
the grandfather of the children. the late
Maj. VIM. B. Slack. as their next friend,
filed petition in the Equity Court pray
ing that all parties be enjo:ned from pros
ecuting mere elsewhere any and all legal
proceedings respecting the custody of the
children during the tendency of the contest
over The will Of tfeir father, the late VIM.
Hall Slack, which contest was filed by Mrs.
Slack.
After lengthy hearing, in which rather
startling and sensational charges and
counteroharses were made, Judge Hagner
granted the injunction, holding that the
old English statute of Charles II, empow-
ering a father to bequeath the custody
and tuition of his minor children, is in
force in this District. Thereupon. in order
to prosecute the habeas corpus proceedings
filed by her, Mrs. Slack abandoned the con-
test over her husbands will, and that In
last week sustained. admitting it to pro-
bate, Mrs. Perrine qualifying as executrix
and as testameItary guardian of the chill
dren.
Claims the Right.
All these matters are set forth at great
length in the answers of Mr.. Perrine and
his wife to The habeas corpus proceedings
filed today by their counsel Messrs. Car
Isle and Johnson and Jere NJ Wilson. The
records of the proceedings before Judge
Hagner and in the Circuit and Probate
Courts were filed as exhibits. The con-
tention of Mrs. Slack that she is entitled
to the possession of her children because
the New Jersey court awarded it to her is
also referred to, and the respondents III
sist, as they did before Judge Hagner. that
that court was without jurisdiction in the
matter, and that it's order is not binding
upon courts of this District. Mrs. PerriI3c
denies that the children are detained by
her, claiming that they voluntarily ard Of
their own choice remain with her. But,
she declares, she has the right to detain
them, because of thc Authority granted 10
her under their fathers will, and she ad-
mits that she refuses to deliver them up
to their mother.
Her Charges.
Her brother, further says Mrs. Perrine,
was forced in his lifetime by the alleged
immoral, indecent and disgraceful conduct
of his wife to keep the children away from
her, and. for the same reason, to so pro-
vide by will that they might not grow up
Under her alleged improper influence and
example. While Mrs. Perrine claims to
have had personal knowledge of Mrs
Slack's alleged bad language and bad con-
duct, she asserts that her brother knew
much more. She says, too. that he was adj
yised by counsel that he had full just:fica
ton for suing for absolute divorce and
for the custody of the children, but that
he refrained for the sake of them and of
their mother, leaving, explains Mrs. Per-
rine, to Mrs. Slack the responsibility Of
iTiStituting proceedings making public the
wno!e miserable story of MS home life.
Such a step was taken by Mrs. Slack,
who charges that her Sister-i1l-law falsely
swore to many matters to the discredit of
her husband and to her own credit as a
wife. Mrs. Perrine denies that her brother
deserted his wife il February, 1891, de-
claring that his wife drove him from the
house Before that, charges Mrs. Perrine,
Mrs. Slack had become dissolute and reca-
less in her habits and conduct, leaving her
home and children to visit hotels and other
places of resort, assoc:ating and drinking:
with men in the absence Of her husband
under most questionable circumstances,
where she became intoxicated, and whence
she was brought to her home in an in
toxicated condition.
In fling legal proceedings against her hus-
band, Mrs. Slack, says Mrs. Perrine in
tended, by setting out part of correspond
eDee, to show TO the public that she Was a
guiltess wife, who had been hasty in tenn
was one entitled to public sympathy. In
this correspondence, asserts Mrs. Perrine,
Mrs. Slack claimed to have been awaitin:;
her husbands reply on or about April ~ CT
80. 1884, at the very time, declares
Mrs. Perrine, when she (NIrs. Slack) was re-
| ceiving improper visits from married men.
Direct Charges.
Continuing her charges, Mrs Perrine
| says: ION the 18th of April, 1874 the pc
| t!tioner CMrs. Slack committed adultery at
her house with Justin Butterfield. On
| April 80, 1894. she entertained men at din
| ner at public restaurant, and the same
| party was later the same evening en-
| tertained at her house, where petitioner
| was guilty of disgraceful and immoral con-
! duct and committed adultery with Barry
| Buckley"
| Leaving the matter of the alleged mis-
| conduct of Mrs. Slack, Mrs. Perr;ne cites
| the authority under which she holds the
| children. and claims that under the laws
| of the District there is no provision for the
| trial by writ of habeas corpus OF the right
| to the permanent custody of infant chill
| dren.
The Court of Chancery she insists, is the
| proper tribunal in which to question hel
| authority. Mrs. Perrine claims. too, tina:
| her right to the custody of the children
having been sustained by the Equity
| Court Judge Hagrer), that Judgment must
| stand. although the injunction granted
therein terminated upon the abandonment
| of the will contest. She, therefore, prays
| that the writ be denied. The answer OF
| Mr.. Perrine denies that the children are de
| tanned or restrained of their liberty by him
| and briefly refers to the legal proceedings
/ In the case.
| 1t Is not probable that the case will BIZ
| heard by Judge McCoElas for several days
| The general impression Is that ne will re
| fuse to interfere. If he does dismiss tn,
case, it is understood that Mrs. Slack:
| counsel will then carry the case to tn,
Court of Appeals.
Mr.. Chapmnn's Appeal.
1 An aft}itional ground for a new trial on<