Wood County reporter. [volume] (Grand Rapids [i.e. Wisconsin Rapids], Wis.) 1857-1923, 1896-12-24
CONTEST FOR A BABY
WEALTHY JEW WOULD REGAIN
CUSTODY OF HIS CHILD.
MARkWELL-PERELES CASE
An Interesting Piece of Litigation Re
viewed in tue Supreme Court
Father Loses IN His First Attemp1
to Secure Possession Of the Little
One-Story of the Case.
Madison, Dec. IS.

Madison, DSC. IL.
An exceedingly interesting case was
argued before the supreme court
Thursday. 1t is an action brought o.
a father to secure possession of his
daughter row held by the little ones
uncle and aunt, the uncle being full
brother of the babes dead mother.
The case comes from Milwaukee
where it was fought il the courts since
Dec. 3. 1895, until recently, when the
appeal was taken The litigants are
very prominent and wealthy jewish
people. the plaintiff being a resident
of New York city, and the defendants
living in Milwaukee. The baby is
little over three years old and IN her
own name has an estate valued at be-
tween 100000 and $4,000.
Nathan M. Maxwell, the father OF
the baby, is a travelling salesman lot
the firm of V Henry Rothchild & Co.,
of New York city, and has a salary OF
$500 which is greatly increased by
large holdings of stocks in the kala-
mazoo Knitting works OF Milwaukee,
and other corporations. In 1892 ne
married Miss Jtlia Esther Pereles III
Milwaukee at the home Of the pride
brother, James M. Pereles. The lat
ter and his wife now have possession
of the baby and are respondents ID
the case. Shortly after the birth OF
the baby, who was named Fannie T.
Maxwell, the mother died in New
York city, and the little one was gwen
into the custody of her uncle ana aunt
and taken to Milwaukee. Maxwell
was married a second time on Nov.
IL. 1895. Then he desired to regain
the custody of his baby and, his de-
mands being refused by Mr.. and Mrs.
Pereles, he had writ of habeaS cor
pus issued ordering that the child
be produced before Judge D. H. john
son of the circuit court for Milwau-
kee county and cause be shown why
the uncle and aunt should not deliver
it over to it's father.
The defendants in their return to
the writ stated that the mother just
before her death made them promise
to take the baby and care for it; that
the father tacitly gave his consent TO
this arrangement over the very bier
containing the remains of his wife (;
that he is of a cold, selfish, unsymp3-
thetic nature, while the child is of a
loving, affectionate and sensitive dis
position; that he is allowed to visit the
child at any reasonable time he de-
sires and that her interests and vel
fare will best be subseryed by continu-
ing her in their custody.
When the matter came up for a
hearing Judge Johnson found that the
child was not illegally restl aimed of
her liberty and that, while q father
has a prima facia right to the care and
custody of his minor child, in this
case, the father having surrendered for
a considerable time such care and GUS
beas corpus proceedings reclaim the
child, if it appear from the facts and
circumstances of the case that it viii
be detrimental to the child's welfare
to award its custody to the father.
The judge further found that Mr.. and
Mrs. Pereles were entitled to retain
the custody Of the baby until she ar
I1fCo ctI JIG dsoS VI Ii "uSA SIG udy
properly select her own custodian.
Then the court dismissed. the writ.
From this order the father took an
appeal TO the supreme court where the
case was argued by Judge George H.
Noyes Of Milwaukee and ex-senator
John c.. Spooner of Madison for the
appellant and by James G. Flanders
OF Milwaukee for the respondents.
The case has attracted great deal
of attention in Milwaukee where Mr.
Pereles is d lawyer in practice with
his brother, T. ]. Pereles, under the
firm name of Nath. Pereles & Sons.
The present custodians of the baby
have never had any children of their
own, They, together with the baby
and its maid, were in Madison yester-
day while the case was being argued
Arguments were heard in other
cases Thursday as follows:
Zautche, respondent, VS.. the North
Milwaukee Townsite company, No. 8,
appellant; argued by w. H. Timlin
for appellant and by W. E. Black for
respondent.
Wlckham, appellant, VS.. Chicago &
Northwestern railway company, re-
spondent; argued by E. S. Elliott and
Z. T. Hickox for appellant and by
+. G. Winkler for respondent