Richmond dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1884-1903, 1899-03-24
NOT ALL BAD
THE SAUNDERS CONTEMPT ACT IN
PART CONSTITUTIONAL.
SUPREME COURT AGAIN PASSES ON II
Mother Loses Possession OF
Her ChiId-Richmond Railway ana
Electric Company Loses Its Trans
fer CnSc-Other Cases Decided.


fer Cnsc-other Cases Decided.
The Supreme Court. IN an opinion rem
dered yesterday, holds that the Saunders
contempt law. which was pronounced by
fha court last week TO be unconstitutional
in some respects, is in part, not in deroga-
ton of the organic law.
The law came up a second time In the
case of Trimble vs.. the Commonwealth,
from the Corporation Court of the city Of
Ivnchburg. The case I'm which it was
first passed upon was Carter vs. Grubbs'
also from the Lynchburg Corporation
Court.
The opinion recitcs that one Susie Fox
peutioned the lower court for a writ of
habeas corpus to secure from one Ella
Trimble, Lillian May, the 5-ycar-old
daughter Of Susie Fox. 1t was averred
ly Susie Fox that she had placed her
child in the custody Of Ella Trimble to
keep and care for during an absence Of
,.e petitioner from the city. but that upon
Der return Ella refused to give up the
child. Upon the answer Of Ella Trimble,
re Court ordered that the child be re-
r,alcd TO her custody until the further
-r Of the Court. Ten months later
Trimble was ordered 90 produce the
.aI in court and show cause why the
.-st order should not be revoked.
IN compliance with this order Ella Trim
lie recites that when the child was re-
manded 20 her custody by the Court she
understood # 10 be the Courts wish that
Lillian should be placed in family, or
81. e III
30 % Wake county, y. c., and had the
superior Court there appoint guaruan
for il. The child was then placed in the
care of ". T.. Bonner, an honest and
kind-hoarted citizen. The respondent
states that when she took the child it
was In sick and starving condition.;
that she has spent many sleeplcss nights
coaXmg tho little spark of vitality into
life. and that the child has gradually
grown strong. She AYERS she cannot pro-
ouce the body Of the child; that she no
longer has control Of st.; that she has
Geo desire 90 evade the process of the
Court. and specifically dlscaims any con-
Tempt. sA4G
NEITHER WAS SUITABLE.
The court certines that it did not think
either the IelatOr or respondent a suitable
person 10 have control of the child; that
u the summer of 1897 Ella Trimble was
told by the judge Of the court she could
take the child 10 Raleigh, y. c., If she
would not keep il away; that while on
tl.s visit her sister, who IS not proper
person 10 have the child. qualified as its
guardian, and the child has never re-
turned. The court. therefore, ordered
That Ella Trimble be attached until she
Produced the child I'm the proceedings
mentioned. or until the further order of
the court. To this judgment a writ Of
error was awarded.
The court holds that Ella Trimble took
the child 10 North Carolina with a com
mondable purpose, and acting upon the
advice Of counsel. a North Carolina court
NJ compotent jurisdiction appointed a
Guardian for the child The guardian
seems 10 have made a beneficial arrange
m.nt for the nurture of the child. Judge
Keith in conclusion, says that the lower
court erred in thesudgment rendered, ana
that 10 Is reversed.
Some space Is taken up I'm the opinion
with showing how an act may be con-
tUtutional I'm part, and unconstitutional In
part. The court holds the Saunders con-
t.mpt law valid statute in so far as IL
rF.s the Supreme Court jurisdiction upon
Vr.- of error 10 review the Judgment In
the case under consideration.
Must Grant the Transfers.
Tho court rendered a decision IN The
Co.. o.. Richmond Railway and Electro
Company ys. Brown that is Of interes'
and Importance 10 all persons residing Oh
ear An.s whether in or near Richmond
OF other cities OF the STATE.
Raymond Brown. the defendant In error
resided neaf Br00kland Park, in Barton
Heights. mean Richmond. and on the Line
or the Hcnrc0 county extension OF th'
.hchmord Railway and Electric lire. h'
applied to the Circuit Court of the c'S
q Richmond for a writ Of mandamus 60
compel the railway companys conduct t'
90 eltD him second transfer 10 the man
Anc of The company, after he had bee'
transferred from the HcnricO line 10 ID,
t'ay-streot line, where 10 was intersecteu
lY the HenricO line al Clay and flrsl
streets. This had formerly been the prac'
See. but was recently discontinued, so
faat when suburban residents who had
been transferred from the HenrcO line L.
She Clay-strcet line wished 10 transfer a.
the main line. they had 90 pay another
fare \ passenger on the Clay-strcei
line gets a transfer from that lme 20 any
0l The ears OF the Richmond Railway and
Electric Company going In the same d.
l.rfion. The company contended thar
f6e suburban passenger was entitled "a
transfer at First and Clay, and ;hat "a
give him another 20 the main line was
according nun TWO thhni'lo bVihS III 'h'
same direction. while the Richmond pas
s,nger had but one.
The opinion, prepared by Judge HAM
Son. holds that the particular number OF
transfers has nothing 10 do win me case
Citizens Of Henfico must ENJOY the sim'
privileges rs citizens Of Richmond. Nhei
they are on the Clay-sireet Inc OF mn
other line of the company the quesuoi
as 10 whether they have gotten OH Inc
honnco line is in no way relevant al amy
tine
The Circuit Court Of Richmond decided