The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1905-11-05

In commenting on the case the Sac
ramento Union says:
The justices O. the court of appeal
yesterday delivered judgment sustain
ing the decision of Judge Shields in the
cup habeaS corpus case. the question
involved being the custody of the child
of Mrs. Culp and the petitioner being
the child's grandfather. It will be re-
membered that Mrs. Culp obtained from
the Kansas court a decree of divorce
against her husband, she being awarded
the custody Of the child. The decree
made no stipulation as to Mrs. Cups
future residence. and she accordingly
moved to California with her daughter.
The Kansas court thereuo0n reversed
its decision as to the custody OF the
child, and the grandfather came to Cali
fornia and commenced proceedings be-
fore Judge Shields in the superior court
to enforce the Kansas Judgment. He
lost the action before Judge Shields and
then proceeded in the court Of appeal by
writ oe habeas corpus
The justices of the court of appeal
point out that there was no order what
ever that Mrs. Culo should remain in
Kansas. and also that the Kansas court
was well aware that Mrs CuIp had left
the state. No notice of subsequent pro-
ceedings was served upon Mrs Culp.
nor was she represented at these pro
ceedings. It was, of course. understood
that by the comfy of states the courts
0l one state cIE required TO support and
enforce the judgments of another but
there was no question Of such comfy
where the proceedings were shown to
be irregular. The writ of habeas corpus
was therefore dismissed
". H Culp, the father of Villa Culp.
the child about whom the controversy
has arisen, is a son OF C. Il. Culp. a
Quincy street liVeryman, and ne has had
enough marital experiences to give him
a clear insight into the workings of the
divorce court.
In an editorial the Sacramento
Union takes a hard slap at the ruling
made by Judge Hazen in the case and
says:
THE judgment is an implied strict
ure upon the Kansas court and the
structure is very thinly yelled by legal
Technology. The comfy of states re-
quireS that the courts of one state
shall support those of another and
the simple fact that the California
1 high-handed decisions of the Kansas
/ judges is in itself a criticism and a
I reproof. Mrs Culp obtained her de-
j cree of divorce in Kansas. with Gus
tody of the child. In that decree there
was no stipulation whatever. expressed
/ or implied. that the mother or the
j child should remain within the juris-
diction of the court She was as free
j 10 come to California as the judge
himself or as any other American citi-
/ zen. For some unexplained reason.
into which we need not inquire. the
/ Kansas court took umbrage at Mrs.
+ CuIp's perfectly legitimate action and
reversed its order as to the custody of
+ the child. and this was done without
/ the service of notice upon Mrs Culp,
without her presence and without the
f presence of her legal representatives.
4 The Kansas judges then rely upon the
comfy of states in their expectation
that the California judges viii support
such lawIess action as this without
+ reference to the equities Of the case,
and also without reference to the fact
that the custody of minors is excepted
from the ordinary operation of this
interstate legal rule