The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1903-12-01
DOMlCILE OR RESIDENCE?
POINT ON WHICH DISPOSITION OF
OsGOOD ESTATE HINGES.
Eminent Attorneys Occupy the Entire
Day in Arguing Legality of Mrs.
Ida StanIey's Adoption.

A number of the most prominent attor-
neys in the city came before Judge Carter.
of the Superior Court. yesterday morning
to argue the suit brought by Mrs. da os-
good Stanley against Charles w. Osgood
to the $3.50, 900 estate left her by her adopted
father, Mason j. Osgood The attorneys for
Mrs Stanley were Addison c. Harris, Ferd
Winter and Wilson & Townley. The de-
PENDANTS were represented by former Judge
Alexander g. Ayres, former Judge Lawson
NJ Harvey and Linton A. Cox The whole
question involved in the suit is the legality
of the adoption of the plaintiff and this
depends upon her residence.
Morris Townley opened the argument for
the plaintiff and consumed the entire morn
ing. He first read transcript of the pro-
ceedings of the Marion-county Circuit Court
in the adoption of Ida May Osgood, Sept.
II, 1877. The transcript showed that the pc
tition of Mason ]. Osgood for the adoption
was written in the exact wording of the
statute. Mr. Townley next read the In
diana statutes on the subject of adoption
to show that the petition Of Mr.. Osgood
conformed with the statute. He discussed
dence' s and "domiciIe'" The ee fact that the
child had her "domicile" with her father
in Hamilton county is not inconsistent with
her residence being In this county. The
fact of the girl having her residence" in
this county would permit and did permit
the adoption.
SIDE OF THE DEFENSE.
Linton A. Cox opened the argument for
the defense at 2 o'clock yesterday after
noon and spoke for two hours. Mr.. Cox
spent considerable time in arguing the jur-
isdiction of the court to grant the adop-
ton. Mr. Cox also cited many authorities
holding that the residence of a person is
held to be mis- 'domicile." He said that If
he could show to the satisfaction of the
court that the residence of the child was
in Hamilton county and not in Marion
county, then the judgment of the Circuit
Court would be void Mr.. Cox then read
a decision of the Indiana Supreme Court
which neld that the words residence, .
'inhabit" and Tive are used synono-
mously with 'domicile."
ris, for Mrs. Stanley, who consumed the
remainder of the afternoon and will con-
| clude his argument this morning. Mr. Har-
ris said that the defendants had no right
to lay claim to the Osgood estate, as they
| claim no right to the property. They are
| here as strangers, aliens almost, and they
don't claim to be in possession Of the prop
| erty. He further said that there was no
| body in court claiming any adverse interest
| to the estate and therefore no one there
| had any right to attack the judgment of
| the Circuit Court. In speaking of the Pc
| tition of Mr.. Osgood for the adoption, Mr..
Harris said that it was drawn up and the
| exact wording Of the statute was used and
| therefore it was not demurrable.
| Mr. Harris will conclude his argument
| this morning and will be followed by the
| other attorneys in the following order: Mr..
| Harvey for the defense, Mr.. Ayres for the
| defense, Ferd Winter and John r. Wilson
| for the plaintiffs. The argument will prob
ably close Wednesday evening.