The Indianapolis journal. [volume] (Indianapolis [Ind.]) 1867-1904, 1904-01-31
ATTORNEYS IRE WORKING
TO REACH Il COMPROMISE
IN OSGOOD ESTATE CASE
CONCLUDED FROM FIRST PAGE1

CONCLUDED FROM FIRST PACED
diers' Home in Marion, to contradict the
evidence of Fisher. Jacobs testified that
he was with Fisk the entire day on which
the election alluded to by Fisher occurred
and that Fisk did not vote. He further teS-
titled that during the time that Fisk was
In Noblesville he did not have his family
with him, by which the plaintiff sought to
show that Fisk had not acquired a resi-
dence in Nobelsville, but was still a resi-
dent of this city. George Higgins also tes-
titled that he had never seen or heard of
Fisk having his children in Noblesville.
The argument began on Nov 80 and was
opened by Morris Townley attorney for the
plaintiff who spoke for three hours. He
of the Marion county Circuit Court in the
adoption of Ida May Osgood, Sept. II, 1877.
The transcript showed that the petition of
Mason j. Osgood for the adoption was writ
ten in the exact wording of the statute
He discussed at length the distinction be-
tween domicile' and residence" He ar
gued that the fact that the child had her
"dOmicile" with her father in Hamilton
county is not inconsistent with her resi-
dence" in this county would permit and
did permit legal adoption.
for the defense Mr.. Cox spent considerab BILE
time in arguing the jurisdiction of the Ma
rion Circuit Court to grant the adoption.
ing that the residence" of person is held
to be his 'domicile" The attorney read
decision of the Indiana Supreme Court
habit" and live" are used synonomously
with "domicile.'
MIR. HARRIS'S ARGUMENT.
Addison C. Harris for the plaintiff, argued
that the defendants had no right to lay
claim to the Osgood estate. He further
argued that the defendants were in court
as strangers, aliens almost, and that
they did not claim to be in possession of
the property. For this reason he said
there was nobody in court claiming any
adverse interest in the estate and therefore
there was no one who had any right to
attack the judgment of the Circuit Court.
Mr.. Harris then argued the difference in
meaning between residence" and "domi-
Gle" He contended that his client could
fathers dOmicile and that this separate
residence could only be acquired by her
father emancipating her
Judge Lawson for the defense. attacked
the jurisdiction of the Marion Circuit
Court in the adoption proceedings and con-
tended that If the position of the plaintiff S
counsel was correct one, then any child
in this State could be adopted by court pro-
ceedings.
Judge Alexander c. Ayres, for the defense
followed Judge Harvey and in alluding to
the emancipation of Mrs. Stanley by her
father he contended that where a child is
TWO years OF age, as was this child at the
time of her adoption. the presumption is
that Ii is not emancipated. Judge Ayres
held that the father could not relieve him.
self OF such responsibility, but could take
the child at any time though he may have
made contract giving her away.
The argument was concluded by John r.
Wilson and Ferdinand Winter for the
pla1nt1n, and the case was taken under
Throughout, owing TO the big sum involved,
IL attracted much attention