The Portland daily press., 1896-02-07

argument for the defense. Mr.. Clifford
said that the action of the petitioner had
created some surprise. They had brought
no evidence to support their claim.
He considered it his duty to give the
Court a history of the events since the
fling of the libel and the separation of
Mr.. and Mrs Brown. This might throw
some light upon the right of custody.
The burden is upon the complainant to
adduce reasons relating to the fitness of
the custodian of her child. The welfare
of the child, alone, is involved.
MIR. Clifford referred to the law passed
by the last legislature in regard to this
joint custody of minor children by father
and mother, as but little modification
of the old doctrine of the common law
He was inclined to think that it was sim
ply sop thrown to certain Glasses, agi-
tators for womens rights
Discreetly or otherwise, his brother
had not put his client upon the stand.
The defendant was sorry for 1T.
Mr.. Clifford said that after the Hing
of the libel it wasssagreed between coun-
sci that the child should be taken to the
mother on two afternoons every week at
the Falmouth Hotel. and that the father
should pay his wife $40 every four weeks.
And now they come into the court and
seek to change this agreement. which has
always been faithfully carried out.
If his brother had any anxiety that the
trial of this libel would be postponed he
desired to assure him that the case would
certainly be brought to trial at the next
term and that he need give himself no
concern in that regard. He would cer--
tainly be called upon to defend that case
| Another feature was that out of kird-
ness of heart the father had voluntarily
allowed the child to visit its mother on
two more days every week, and she had
written that it needn't come at those
hours, but that it had better be exercised
out OF doors.
| Mr.. Clifford spoke at some length as
| to the burden OH the complainant to
show good reason for the disturbance of
the agreement between counsel. Also
the wishes of the child should be taken
into consideration By the Court.
AS to the fitness Of the mother he had
nothing to say. Had there been evidence
| introduced he might have seen fit to COM
ment in the light of the facts shown in
the evidence
Mr.. Clifford contended that Port
land is the home of Mr. Brown, that
therefore the child comes under the juris-
diction Of the court here, and that con-
sequently the Judge should not allow
this child to go outside of his jursidio-
ton.
AS to the amount of money that had
been allowed the plaintiff. the sum of $40
every four weeks had been deemed am
ply sufficient.
If the opposing counsel had anxiety
as to the continuation of this allowance,
and took into no consideration the honor
and standing of the defendant. then
they were willing that an order Of the
Court should be issued compelling tho
payment Of the allowance.
They would take the position that Mr..
Brown had had the care of the child
for the last year and half, not only be-
cause of his desire, but because he had
been in a measure compelled to. He sub
mitted that the fact that the plaintiff
had friends and relatives in distant
city, where she would naturally like to
go, should enter largely into the decision
of the Court. Thoy had put Yin no evil
denoe to show what was tho purpose of
the plaintiff in case the child should be
put into her custody. He knew nothing
about that, but it was known where Mr..
Brown would live.
| Mr.. Clifford put in evidence the letter
to Mr.. Brown stating that Mrs. Brown
would prefer to have the child visit her
only Wednesdays and Saturdays and
that on the other days she be allowed to
| play outdoors after school.
MR.. RAND'S CLOSING ARGUMENT.
Mr.. Rand said in closing that he was
GLAD Mr.. Clifford had made one state
ment, because "if ne hadn't made that
statement shouldn't have b elieved it,
| He said he was accustomed to deal only
with facts in speaking in court. He has
not done so in this case.
| Mr. Rand commended that week ago
last Tuesday when they discussed this
matter before Judge Strout all previous
arrangements between counsel had been
cancelled. 1t was fact that for weeks
and months there was a hope that Eso1ne-
thing might be done to bring about
settlement Of the differences between
these parties.
1t was solely because of this that the
child was allowed to remain in the GUS
| tody Of the father one single hour He
was instructed by his client to say that
while everything was going on month
after month SO satisfactorily to this kind
and affeotionate father, while he had the
child, nothing was done to bring about
an adjustment of the difficulties.
Three weeks ago the conclusion was
reached that no adjustment was possible.
That ended the arrangement as to the
child. Did they want proof? After that
conclusion was reached they came to his
Office before sending the child to the
mother to obtain from MIN assurance
that she would return the child. They
thus showed that they recognized that
the arrangement was cancelled when it
was decided that no adjustment was pos
sible.
Since then the time given the mother
had been decreased rather than increased.
In stead of ak hours a week it was five