Evening star. [volume] (Washington, D.C.) 1854-1972, 1903-02-10
PETITION DISMISSED
Application for Habeas Corpus
in the Ames Case.
THE COURTS RULING
MRS HELEN g. sPARHAwK Re-
LIEvED OF GUARDIANSHIP.
Her Nephew, Previously Her Ward,
Said to Be Heir to Large Estates
in Uruguay.
THE COURTS RULING


the District of Columbia this afternoon an
| nounced his opinion in connection with the
| proceedings instituted by Mrs. Helen G.
| Sparhawk of Brookland. D. c., against Ed
| uardo Larroque and others for writ of
habeas corpus to secure possession Of her
nephew, jose Preston Ames.
The case has attracted widespread atten-
| ton. The court held that the petition for
habeas corpus should be dismissed. Jus
tice Barnard further. in his capacity as
| the justice presiding in the Probate CoIr-,
| decided to vacate without prejudice the or
der appointing Mrs. Sparhawk guardian OF
her nephew.
Mrs. Sparhawk was appointed by Justice
Barnard, December 8 last, guardian to
Jose Preston Ames. The latter was born
March 20, 1892. at Pay Sandu, Uruguay.
His parents were Preston Adams Ames, a
citizen of the United States, who then lived
in Uruguay, and his wife, Octavia Har-
rigue de Ames, a native Of that country.
! Soon after the birth of the child, the father,
who was a brother of Mrs Sparhawk. died
while on the ocean, on voyage to the
Canary Islands.
After the fathers death the child con-
| tinued to live with its mother, and for the
greater portion OF the time she lived in
Uruguay, but for portion of the time she
| lived in the District of Columbia, and was
! here December last, when she died.
July %. 1893, the mother and child were
here, and the mother was then appointed
guardian of the child by the District Su-
preme Court.
The petition of the mother for this ap-
pcntment stated that the child had one
fifth interest in a certain invention made
By his deceased grandfather, and the guar
dianship was necessary in order to secure
letters patent, the invention had not
been patented. In the same proceeding
Mrs. Sparhawk December 9 last filed a pc
H. %t,~~ tod
| intestate. leaving certain property, and also
that the boy had property interests OF I'M
! known value in Salto, Uruguay.
After the appointment of Mrs. Sparhawk
as guardian she applied to the court. for
the possession Of her ward, but without sue
cess. Thereafter she presented her petition
for writ of habeas corpus, which was issued
December IL last A copy was served on
writ was returned Not found as to Edu-
ardo Larroque and Pepita Larroque," who
are cousins of Jose Preston Ames, and who
are temporarily residing in this city. As to
them second writ was issued December
10, which was served.
Mrs. Sparhawk's Allegations.
In her petition for the writ, Mrs. Spar
hawk averred that the respondents were
unawfully OBTAINING the child in this Dis
trict, and that they refused to deliver him
to her. and that she believed they contem-
trict
From the answers of the respondents and
from the testimony it appears that the
night before Mrs. Sparhawk was appointed
guardian the boy was taken out Of the
District by Eduardo Larroque. accompanied
by DR.. LIE Merle, and under the advice
OF representatives Of the uruguayan lega-
ton and Of counsel, was taken to New
York and sent to Uruguay, leaving New
York December 10; and 1t was claimed that
such disposition Of the child was in ac
cordance with the wishes Of his mother, as
expressed by her In the day before she
died.
The property to which Jose Preston Ames
will succeed as sole heir of his mother is
situated in Uruguay and consists of es-
tates of great value in the province Of
Salto.
1t was claimed by counsel for Mrs. Spar
hawk that the child Is a citizen of the
United States, and such 1t was the duty
OF the court to appoint Mrs. Sparhawk as
guardian and to aid her in all possible
ways in obtaining the custody Of Jose
Preston Ames, and that some order ought
to have been made requiring the respond
ents to have the child brought back to the
District
The Judges View Of Case.
Justice Barnard, in disposing Of the case,
remarked that he was unable to see that
the question Of citizenship is Of Importance
SO far as the controversy is concerned. He
case from the standpoint of the child
While the mother made no will which
could be operative, remarked Justice Bar
nard, she plainly expressed her wishes as
to the future custody and home of her
child, and that wish alone would be very
persuasive in the mind of the court; but in
addition to that the estate to which the IN
FAINT is entitled consists of real property,
and property now employed in business en-
terprlses IN Uruguay, and. according to the
court. guardian in this District might
find 1t very difficult. If not impossible, to
properly manage the property and look
after the interests Of the infant.
The boy will not be among strangers or
in strange place, If reared in Uruguay by
and with his mothers relatives, Justice
Barnard said, and in all probability his
property interests will be better protected
by having guardian in that Jurisdiction,
familiar with the laws Of the country.
Further, said Justice Barnard II the boy
remains in South America he will be more
likely to acquire practical knowledge of
his property and the laws that govern it.
attains his majority. than If he should be
reared here.
I'm convinced said Justice Barnard, in
conclusion. that Edward LorroQue acted
in good faith, and within the lines Of his
legal rights as he was advised, in taking
the boy to New York. and sending him to
South America, and that being SO, and the
child being out of this District, and not
property here of such character as to war
rant the Probate Court In appointing a
guardian, at the time the petitioner was ap-
pointed. I am constrained to hold that the
petition for habeas corpus should be dis
missed"
OF Doubtful Validity.
"1n the capacity Of the Justice presiding
in the Probate Court. am disposed to hold
that the appointment of Mrs. Sparhawk as
guardian was Of doubtful validity. being
based upon the presumption that the child
was here and had property here Of char
acter and title authorizing the same, when
such was not in fact. the case; and there
fore. without any reflection upon the good
faith Of Mrs. Sparhawk or her counsel,
will, by reason OF the facts now ap-
parent from the testimony. vacate the or
der of appointment. without prejudice"
Attorney Walter c. C1ephane appeared
for the respondents. while Attorneys
Thompson and Laskey represented Mrs.