The evening times., 1896-06-13
Observation-Disclosures
Counsel for Mrs. Slack Argue
Before Court of Appeals.
CASE RATHER COMPLICATED
Arguments Upona Motion to Hayetlie
Mandate Dispatched Forthwith TO
the Lower Court-fInai Custody Of
the Girls to BE Determined by the
United States Supreme Court.

According TO agreement the court of
appeals this morning heard oounsels' ap-
plicauon i'll the STA ck-Perrine habeus
corpus case for an immediate delivery of
the recent mandate. Such delivery
would give Mrs. Stack forthwith her two
little girls that were taken away from
her in September, 1894, and have since
been in the custody of Mrs. AdrIe Slack
Perrine, their aunt, OF Trenton, M j.
The history of The peculiar case is we'll
Known. Mr.. Slack, Il society leader and
ciublnan, sent The children on a visit to
his aunt. 4 few months later lie died,
leaving will giving her the guardianship
OF them. Mrs. Slack began proceedings
To regain them, and tie Perrines opposed it
on the grounds that she was an immoral
and improper person to bring up the chill
dren up. The court of chancery of New
Jersey decided she should have the custody
OF her daughters, and the PerriDcs fled To
this city.
Here proceedings were begun to the
same end. After an appeal by Mrs. Slack
the court or appeals decided IN her favor
and directed tne curt below To turn the
children over to their mother. Judge Nc
Comas, the trial judge, refused TO do this
until the mandate comes down in regular
form Meanwhile a start was made To get
the case TO tile court OF appeals on a writ
of error, and aimnst 1t the same time the
announcement was made that the New
Jersey cnurt had rescinded the decision it
had already reached.
A COMPLICATED CASE.
1t was, therefore, a complicated set of
questions that hinged on the innocent
looking motion that the court bad to decide
when the case came up this morning.
George i. Hamilton, associated with I. . S.
Wort Dlurtnn hnbnlf Of
opened The argument. The motion for an
appeal on writ Of error, said be, would
not be opposed. The question 10 lie argued
was one for the temporary custody OF the
children, and the court was To be asked to
make an appropriate order, giving Mrs.
Slack the temporary control OF the chill
drcn
first Judgment of the New Jersey court
because the PARTIES had flown with the
wards. Future control over the little girls
could be left with the Supreme Court of
the United states.
The argument of Mrs. Perrine's counsel
Messrs. Jere NJ. Wilson. Calderon Carlisle
and William e. johnson, was set forth in
brief, that was filed with the clerk of the
court
They asserted that the court of appeals
had no jurisdiction at the present time
in the matter and that il had no authority
TO entertain the motions made by Mrs
Slack. They called attention to the fact
that not only had Il writ Of error been ap-
piled for. but that the Supreme Court had
Issued one ON June 6, S96 BY that action
the cause and parties to it were removed
To the Supreme Court of the United States
and neither the court of appeals nor the
supreme court of The district can for the
the present take cognZance of such Il mo-
ton as that now pending.
SHE WANTS THEM
Mr.. Carlisle argued The point along tie
lines laid down. He was interrupted by
Mr. Worthinrton. who explained that they
did not press the point for an immediate
commital of the mandate provided the
court OF appeals itself would pass an order
giving Mrs Slack the control of her chill
drcn.
If the court would not do that then they
insisted that tie mandate be sent down
forthwith commanding Judge MCCtmas to
deliver the children into the custody of
their mother.
Judge Wilson and Mr.. johnson spoke in
similar Strain and Mr.. Worthington closed
the argument in behalf of Mrs. Slack.
The argument listed until l As O'Clock,
when CHER Justice Alvey announced that
the court would take the matter under ad-
viscment and return Il decision later