The Portland daily press. [volume] (Portland, Me.) 1862-1921, 1899-05-12
BATTLE OVER A CHILD.
A Scene in a Famous Divorce
Case Enacted Here.
DIR. Crutkshank of Brooklyn Tries 20
Get Hts Dang liter From the Gus
tody of the Mother.

4
l
In the Superior Court, yesterday morn
ing at 9o'olook. Judge Bonney heard
testimony anu arguments In an inter-
esting and dramatic case involving the
custody Of Marion Cruik shank, the
tw elve-year-old daughter OF DIR, William
j. and Mrs Maud Cruikshank, Of
Brooklyn, N Y. The case came into
court in the form Of proceedings brought
under writ of habeas corpus. The writ
was asked for by the father. DIR. William
sion of his daughter from her mother
Hon. Clarence Hale, and Arthur +.
Belcher appesred for DIR. Cruikshank,
and Richard Webb. Esq, for Mrs. Cruik-
shank and the daughter.
The father told the court the reasons
for,wishing the custody of the child He
said that he was physician in regular
practice In Brooklyn, that his household
was composed OF his mother and his SIS
ter, besides himself His house was
worth, twelve thousand dollars. and was
mortgaged for seven thousand dollars.
His professional income amounted some
years to as high rs eight or ten Thousand
dollars. he could give the child home
and would do so.
Deputy Sheriff Clarence l.. Buckp am,
who served the writ OF habens corpus on
Wednesday, told very stirring story of
his adventure. He said that Mrs Cruik-
shank and her daughter were on tbs
street when he first found them They
seemed apprehensive of some molestation,
| frequently turning around. When he
presented himself at e. hotel whittier
they had gone to visit a relative. Mrs.
| Cruikshank was very suspicious about
opening the door of the room to admit
him, and he had to use some force to open
the door wide enough to gain entrance.
Once within the room he explained that
| he was an officer, showed his badge of
office and demanded custody OF the child
| on the strength of the writ which he
bore. Mrs. Cruikshank, who Is . young
and active woman, did not give him time
| to show the writ but few at him and at
| tempted to throw him from the room.
She seems to have had the strength of
d. spair, for although Mr.. Buoknam must
weigh over 200 pounds, he testified that
4 for a moment he seemed In danger of
going out the door. She smashed his
derby hat completely, and the wreck of
it was shown in the court room as evil
denoe of the fury with which the mother
| fought for her child. When it was found
| that the invader could not he expelled the
mother and child started to flee from thu
room by another door; but the officer
caught them both and held them. Then
he managed to reason them into compare
tive calm, and explained to them his
duty. The little girl then came to him,
and putting her arms about this neck,
said to him: II have just one favor to
ask; do notsstake me away from my dea
mama" Mr.. Bucknam. who is ten
der-hearted man. assured the little girl
that he had no intention of harming her.
| but must guard both her and her mother
until action could be taken by the court.
| He then took them to the Congress Square
hotel, where the father was stopping, and
placed them in room N. Ito. where he
guarded them until this morning.
Mr.. Webb took the ground that the
proceedings by habeas corpus could not be
taken in a case of this sort. The writ of
| habeas corpus was for the relief of one
restrained Of liberty by process Of law. 1t
could not be argued that the little girl
came under this definition. or course
the former law gave to the father the
control of the ohlldren; but in 1895 the
Maine Legislature had passed a law CIV
ing to the father and mother equal con.
troll, the Probate Court to decide in case
of conflict between them.
Mr.. Hale commended that the proceeding
by habeas corpus was perfectly proper
and that in that way alone the father
could assert his rightful authority. He
said that his client would agree that the
little girl should be sent to New York,
the question of custody to be decided
there.
Mr.. Webb in response pointed out that
/, tue WITH IHcutiOuou UOtu MAUI anu
Marion Cruikshank as of Portland.
Therefore he contended that the case
should be settled by the laws Of this State
MIR. Hale contended that the description
was immaterial, and that they might
properly be sent TO New York.
Judge Bon ey in rendering his decision
said that the Legislature had gradually
II creased the rights of married woman.
an in 1891 hau given to the mother
equal authority with the father over
n inor children, leaving it to the Probate
Court to settle differe 1ces between thsm,
Therefore he should not take the child
away from the mother.
The announcement was the occasion for
| quiet thanksgiving between the mother
and the child. The child kissed the
mother, the mother began to weep, and
then the child wept also.
The child, while wishing to remain
with the mother. as would be natural.
seems also to have much affection for the
father, aud after the decision the two
kissed and had long and friendly con-
versation. The mother and father had
nothing to do with one another, however.
1t seems probable that the question of
the custody of the child will be tried out
in the probate court in this county. At
| least. such seemed to be athe mention
after the decision of Judge Bonney.
Divorce proceedings which are at the
bottom of this case originally took
place before Supreme Court
Justice Jesse johnson in New York state,
and jury, and Thursdays proceedings
| In Portland may be looked upon as an-
other scene in the progress of the deyel-
| opment of the story.
AT the original trial the case was dis
| missed, counter charges at the Tins be-
ing brought by DR.. Cruikshank.
immediately following the divorce pro-
oeedings DR.. Cruikshank instituted habeas
corpus proceedings under the laws OF the
| State of New York for the custody of the
daughter Marion.
1t is claimed by DIR. Cruikshank that
Mrs. Cruikshauk attempted to avoid the
| service OF, the writ, but the court held that
the service was legal one and for avoid
ing the same warrant for her arrest was
| issued on or about March ~, 1899.
1t is said that the warrant was returned
unserved and the reason stated was that
Mrs. Cruikshank could not be found. 1t
was alleged that she had left the State
of New York taking with her the child
which the writ Of habeas corpus was
seeking for
hni1t a weak ago. Mr c. d. Cruikshauk