Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-06-13
THE SLACK CHILDREN
More Legal Arguments in a Much
Discussed Case.
EFFECT OF TIE new JERSEY DECISION
Court Of Appeals Listens to
Both Sides.
QUESTION OF CONTROL

| The Court of Appeals held a special meet
| ing this morning to consider two motions
made by the respective counsel I'm the
| matter of the controversy over the custody
of the children of the late VIM. II. Slack.
! On behalf of the mother of the children,
| Mrs Mary Kemble Slack. hcr counsel,
| Messrs. Geo. E. Hamilton, A. S. Worthing
| ton ana Julian G. Buckley, moved the
| court 10 at once send it's mandate down to
| Judge McComas, that the latter might. in
| conformity with the courts decision, trans
| fer the custody of the little ones from their
| aunt and testamentary guardian, Mrs. Ad-
die Slack Perrine, TO their mother. pending
| future proceedings in the case, tnat the
| court so direct the court below.
| On the other hand counsel for Mrs. Per-
| rir e, Nessrs Carlisle and Johnson and
Jere NJ Wilson. moved the court TO grant q
4 rehearing of the case, opposing of course,
| the motion made on the other side. The
| Court of Appeals, IL will be remembered,
reversed the judgments of Judges Nc
Ccmas and Hagner, holding that the judg-
ment OF the court of chancery of New
| Jersey, awarding the custody of the chill
dren to their mother, is binding upon, and
must be respected by, the courts of this
District.
Several days ago. and subsequent to the
| decision of the Court Of Appeals the judg-
| ment of the New Jersey court was set aside
this later action of the New Jersey court,
| II was understood, counsel for Mrs. Perrine
| asked the Court of Appeals TO grant a re-
hearing of the whole case. But previous TO
making the motion for a rehearing. Mrs.
Perrine's counsel petitioned for a writ of
error to the United States Supreme Court,
which writ was allowed by Mr.. Chief JUS
tee Alvey of the Court OF Appeals.
On behalf of Mrs. Slack Mr. Hamilton
explained that while they believe that no
| appeal lies from the Court of Appeals to
| he mi TOD
corpus proceedings, they would not insist
| upon that point They merely desired he
said, that the mandate of the appellate
court should issue forthwith that Judge
McComas might act in conformity thereto.
or that the appellate court snail direct
Judge McComas to make an order giving
Mrs; Slack the custody of the children
peEdihg future proceedings in the case.
That is, further explained MIR. Hamilton.
they would not ask the court to issue its
| mandate unless the court believes that
writ of error does not fie TO the Supreme
Court. In other words, they merely, asked
that the mother of the children he now
given the temporary custody of her little
ones. The recent action of tile New Jer-
sey court Mrs. Slack has appealed from,
said Mr.. Hamilton. ard he argued that the
action of that court can have, therefore,
no effect upon the prco dnss here. Ger
tainly not, he thought, pending The appeal
noted by Mrs. Slack in New Jersey.
The Other Side.
explained that they had contemplated max
ing the motion for a rehearing even before
the recent action Of the New Jersey court
was had. Therefore, they did not base
their motion upon the late ection of the
New Jersey court Mr.. Carlisle then pro-
ceeded to argue that the Court of Appeals
having allowed writ of error to the United
States Supreme Court, the court is. there
fore. without power to make order now
disturbing the present custody of the chill
die en-.
"Do you mean to say" inquired Mr. Jus
uce Shepard, that Judge McComas can
make no order now respecting the custody
of the children? ?'
Mr.. Carlisle replied that he so contended
and he also remarked that the District
Chancery Court Judge Hagner. in the
present instance). and not Judge Nc
Comas, has the present jurisdiction of the
custody of the children.
But the proceedings before Judge Hag-
ner," remarked Mr.. Justice Morris. was a
petition for an injunction to restrain ha-
beas corpus proceedings and all others
pending the contest over the will of ;he
father of the children. How can IL be said
that Judge Hagner still has Jurisdiction
over the custody OF the children when the
Injunction granted by him ceased when the
Will contest was concluded?'
Judge HaEncr's Decision.
Mr. Carlisle replied that in the injunction
proceedings there was prayer for a gen.
eral relief and in that way, he thought,
Judge Hagner retained Jurisdiction over
the children.
But" interrupted Mr. Justice SHEPARD.
Il understand that Judge Hagner merely
en1oined proceedings pending the contest
over the WILL expressly refraining as un-
derstand 1t, from passing upon the fitness
OF any OF the parties to have the custody
of the children
That was true, said Mr.. Carlisle. bur
Judge Hagner, he continued decided that
the children should remain in the custody
of Mrs. Perrine. In that way Judge Hay-
ner, he argued, retained the Jurisdiction
over the children, and he insisted that
Judge McComas. having dismissed the writ
OF ha5eas corpus, in recognition of the
injunction granted by Judge Hagner the
jurisdiction of the latter was not disturbed
But the judgment OF Judge McComas
having been appealed from, was not his
custody over the children, obtained by the
issuance Of the writ of habeas corpus. re-
tadned during the pendency of the appeal?''
inquired Mr.. Justice Shepard.
Mr.. Carlisle thought not, again insisting
that Judge Hagner alone has jurisdiction
over the children. And in conclusion he
contended that neither Judge McComas
Tor the Court of Appeals can now, the
writ of error to the United States Supreme
Court having been allowed, disturb the
present custody of the children.
Mr.. Wilson also addressed the court, as
did Mr.. Worthingtcn, the points raised by
their respective associates being dwelt upon
las this afternoon, The court reserving its
sci in few days, however.