Arizona republican., 1905-01-22

| right of guardianship over the children
 committed to its care and custody. that its authority is limited to the reception in it's institution of infants or the age Of two years or under found in the city of New York. who have been
 abandoned or deserted, and such as ar, surrendered to it under the provisions of it's charter. and to keep within said institution said infants during their minority; and that said charter does not confer upon said institution the
 right to make any such disposi- 1, ton of said children as was made by the petitioner as set forth in its petition, and that by making such disposition the said petitioner has lost such power, right and authority as may have been conferred upon it by the charter of the state of New York to retain the custody and control of said infant
 The respondent, by way of plea in abatement, set up that the petitfoner had no right to maintain the action. for the reason that it appears upon the face of the position that the petitioner IS a foreign corporation and has not filed copy of it's articles of incorDora- ton or charter or the appointment of an agent resident within the territory upon whom process may be served. as provided in chapter 10 of the Revised Statutes, and the amendments thereto.
 By way of further return, respondent alleged that letters of guardianship of the person of the child named in the petition were granted to the respondent by the probate court of Graham county. Arizona, and that said respondent. un- de, and by virtue of said letters of guardianship, has duly qualified as such guardian by taking the oath and giving the bond required by law and the or der Of said court; and that thereupon respondent became, was. and now is. the legally appointed and acting guar dian of said child; that upon the hear ing of the application for said letters or guardianship the petitioner appeared and from the order of said court ap- pointing respondent guardian as afore- said it has taken an appeal to the dis trict court of the Second judicial dis trict of the territory of Arizona.
 The respondent further made return that the child charged in the petition to be unlawfully in the custody and control or respondent is a white Ca.i- casian child of the Anglo-S race. that the petitioner, on or about the first day of October, 1904, brought the said child to the territory of Arizona and abandoned him to the keeping of a Mexican-Indian, whose name is un- known to the respondent. and who was and is financially unable properly To feed, clOthe, shelter, maintain and ed ucate said child, and is otherwise. by reason of his race, mode of living. hab- it's and education, entirely unfit to have such care, control and education of said child; that the said person to whom petitioner abandoned said child volun- p-iI c-rr- nd -1 1H-sr persons, who thereupon placed said child in the care. custody and control of respondent; that respondent is a it person to have the care. custody and control of said child, and that it will be to the best interest of said child that he be permitted to remain within the care, custody and control of respondent, whose purpose and in tentiOn it is to rear, maintain. educate and provide for said child in all things as though he were his own.
 The motion to quash the writ was denied and the plea in abatement was overruled. The petitioners motion to strike was denied, and it's demurrer to the return overruled.
 Application for writs in sixteen other cases, involving the custody of sixteen other children, were brought by the petitioner The petitions nthose cases were similar to that filed in the casa against John c. Gatti; the return in each of those cases was likewise sim liar to the return made in the Gatti case. In response to the writs the children were all produced in court.
 By stipulation entered into between the counsel for the petitioner and the counsel for the several respondents. it was agreed that the proof adduced in the trial of the application for the wri5 of haheas corpus in the case of John C. Gatti, the pleadiags and the tesui- mOEy taken. should be taken. applied to and considered by the court as filed. taken and applied in each of the other eases fer wTits Of habeas corpus brought by the petitioner, and that each of said eases should abide the result of the determination of Jhe case of John C. Gatti. The case was thereupon tried Up-n the issues of fact raised by the petition, the return. and an amended traverse to the return filed by the petitioner.
 The testimony was heard in open
 Continued on Page 10.