Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1896-06-03
GO TO THE MOTHER
Mrs. Slack Given Custody Of Her
Children.
Two JUDGES DECISIONS OVERRULED
Court Of Appeals Acts on the
Case.
THE POINTS COVERED
Two JUDGES DECISIONS OVERRULE]
THE POINTS COVERED

|
Harriet Addie Slack Perrlne. in which Mrs
| Slack sought, through a writ Of habeas
corpus to regain possession of her children.
| two little girls of eight and ten years of
age, and the appellate court decides that
| the decision Of the New Jersey court which
| awarded the little ones to their mother,
| must be recognized az binding upon the
| courts Of this jurisdiction. The question of
| whether the old English statute Of Charles
| II empowering father to dispose of the
guardianship of his minor children by deed
OF by will even to the exclusion of the
rights of their mother was in force and
effect here the court found it unnecessary
to decide although 1t intimates that 1t was
not to the ext ,nt claimed on behalf of Mrs.
Perrine But that law has now been re-
pealad by an act of Congress. approved by
the President Monday last.
The father of the children William Hall
Slack, died the I'd of last October and. by
a will dated the 18th of last July. he made
his sister. Mrs. Perrine. guardian of the
children until they reach the age of twenty
one years or marry.
He also made them sole and equal bene-
fcaries Of his estate, although Mrs. Slack
claimed that whatever he died possessed
of was derived solely from her. The 9th
Of October Mrs. Slack filed a petition in
the New Jersey courts for the possession
of her children by writ Of habeas corpus.
Mrs. Perrine, in whose possession the chill
dren then were and are, answered Mrs.
Stacks petition by claiming hat the New
Jersey court was without jurisdiction in
the matter because. as she alleged. the
domiciIe of the children and their father
was in the District of Columbia. where.
she also insisted. the old English statute of
Charles III in force. and that her
brother had in his will made her the
guardian Of Che children. the New Jersey
court could not interfere with her posses
ctr ~ thoy,, Nnn lcn oh, f1,r,t Me-,
Slack was not a fit person to have the
children
In the Courts.
The case was set for hearing before
the New Jersey court, Vice Chancellor
Bird, the Goth Of November. but three or
four days before that Mrs. Perrine carried
the children out of the jurisdiction of ihat
court bringing them % this city. There
upon the New Jersey cour. rot only award
ed the custody OF the little ones to Mrs
Slack. but issued a warrant for the COM
mtment of Mrs. Parrine and her hUsban.
Lewis P=rrne. to jail Eor contempt of court
in taking the children out of the state
lending the hearing ef The case. Finding
that the children had been brought here
Mrs. Slack at once sought possession of
them through a petition for a writ of
haheas corpus filed here. Before it was
heard by Judge McComas the late Maj.
VIM. h. Slack, the grandfather of the chill
dren, filed. as their next friend, a petit
ton for an injunction, praying that all
proceedings respecting the possession of
them be enjoined until after the contest
over their fathers will, instituted by Mrs
Slack. should be finally terminated.
The petition for the injunction was pre-
S"nted to Judge HagLer, and before him.
during a long and spirited hearing, Mrs
Slack was accused of being an intemperaIe
aid improper person 20 have the custody
of her children, charges which she indig
nsntly denied. Mrs. Perrine also claimed
tb.ir AT b.rs will
Slack denied that the old English statute
above referred to was in force here and
also insisted that the courts here could
not igr ore the decision of the New Jersev
court. which awarded to her the custody
Of her little ones. Judge Hagner how
ever, without passing upon the fitness of
Ms. Slack to have the custody of her chill
Ore n, held that the English statute was in
force here. and also held that the decision
OF the New Jersey court not binding
upon the courts here. Thereupon he
granted the desired injunction. Mrs. Slack
however, rendered that order of no effect
by abandoning her contest over her hus-
bands Will. That done. the habeas corpus
proceedings were renewed before Judge
Mccomas they having been stayed by him
to await Judge Hagners decision in the in
junction proceedings. Without expressing
an opinion in the matter himself, Judge
McComas dismissed the writ of habeas
corpus, overruling the demurrer filed by
Mrs. Slack to the Perrines' answer to the
petition for the writ Thereupon Mrs.
Slack carried the case to the Court of APP
reals, MeSSrs. George f.. Hamilton and A.
5. Warrington appearing in her behalf,
while Mcssrs. Carlisle & Johnson and Jere
M. Wilson represented the Perrines.
New Jersey Decision.
After reviewing at length the proceedings
in the New Jersey and District courts, Mr..
Justice Shepard. speaking for the Court Of
Appeals, says that in the courts view of
the case it is wholly unnecessary to decide
whether the old English statute above al
luded to was in force here to the full ex-
tent claimed for 1t, viz. that father of
minor children may by deed or will,
transfer their exclusive custody and
troll to a guardian regardless of the fact
that their mother. his wife. may be COM
petent. willing, and in all respects qualified
to maintain, educate and train them prop
cry" For the decision of the case he
continues, "as presented on this record,
turns upon the effect that must he given to
the decree of the chancery court of New
Jersey"
Then he goes on to say that not only
were the children in New Jersey and were
produced in court there, but that the Per-
rims were both citizens of that state. domi-
cled therein, were there served with pro-
cess. and there appeared in person and by
counsel. Therefore, the first question is. can
the doctrine of res judicata be founded on
the decree rendered in such a proceeding?
After discussing habeaS corpus proceedings
Mr. Justice Shepard says the writ neces
sarily becomes Widened in the Of
minor children, the contests in such cases
generally concerning the conflicting rights
of claimants to the custody and control of
such children, rather than the mere ques
ton Of the rights of the children to be dis
charged from an illegal restraint. There
fore, the court sees no reason why the
principle Of res juSlcfaa should not apply
to the Judgment ofSthe New Jersey court
In fact. the doctrine applies with stronger
reason to that judgment because the New
Jersey court had, IN addition to concurrent
jurisdiction with the, courts of law in
habeas corpus, general jurisdiction over
minor children. =, bI
Dangerous Precedent.
That the decree must be given the same
effect in other Jurisdictions that 1t would
have in New Jersey the Court of APP
peals says. is well settled, and a decision
of the United states, Supreme Court is
quoted in support of that proposition. Mr..
Justice Shepard askss1n that connection:
III the contention as regards the loss Of
jurisdiction. by reason of the removal If
the children from,eNeW Jersey. were sus-
tanned by this court, what assurance have
we that our judgment in this case may
not be rendered Equally vain with that Of
the chancery court of New Jersey? The
children might be spirited away into Mary
lafd or Virginia and the same contention
made IN the courts Of those states as to
the effect OF the judgment in this jurisdic
ton. We apprehend that those courts
would give effect to the decree here In so