The times dispatch. [volume] (Richmond, Va.) 1903-1914, 1905-03-17
A FATHER GIVEN
CUSTODY Q OF CHILD |.
Supreme Court Of Appeals De
cides Interesting Case OF
Divided Family.
MUST TRANSMIT MESSAGES {: S 'c'| $
Federal Constitution Not Appli-
cable to Umstadter Case.
RI ssss "A Local Case.

a Local Case. IL
In the Supreme Court of Appeals OF VIZ r
9ginla yesterday opinions we're named y. 1''
| down In four cases, the appellate court.
reversing tho lower courts ~ three q
the four cases. Judge buchanan wrote e
the opinion Of tho court In two cases,
Judge Harrisonsin one, and Judge w ~ mt
tie In another.
III BY far5the most Interesting case ldecl ucu,
from tho STANDPOINT Of the layinan, Is
the appeal from the ruling OF q lower WEI
court in hapeas corpus proceedi1nrsn
brought by a father to secure the custody
Of his two children, now in the cust9dy
of the mother, who had deserteuss ne!
husband. In this case the court empliu-
sizes tho law which entities the husband
to the custody OF his children unless IL
be shown that he Is not capao Of Or
fails to provide q support for his wire
and children, u and that lie Is q lit ana
proper person to have and to cnre for tho
children.
Il The cnse In question is that Of Taylor
vs.. Taylor, from the Circuit Court OF
Norfolk county, Judge George NJ. Harr.-.
son delivering the opinion OF the court lllt
reversing the trlul court and rem;alTntd1n1s
the case for further proceeding IN ac-l
cordance with the opinion. In this case
Sthe husband sued out writ Of lf ma e :
corpus to secure the custodyto OF two smal!
children, both iof whom had been aiken by
the mother IN her abandonment OF her
husbands home In Cape Charles, Va
The Wife, without sufficient cause, DEL
serted her husband, carrying the chill
8dren with her, and went to her ibrothers g
home. The husband vainly besought her
to return. a butt she positively refused
2whercupon he instituted the proceeding
for the custody Of the children. The
wife setsup as her defense th:.t she was
cruelty and harshly treated by her hus-a
band. The evidence in the case failed
to sustain her claim. and, on the28con-
Etrary, established5the fact that the hus-s
band was Industrious, kind, thrifty and
fairly Sprosperoua,San and lore an excellent
reputation in his community. The appel
late court holds that there can scarcely
be but one opinion under the facts and
circumstances established, and that's
that both the paramount right Of tins
father and the welfare OF the hildre1l
demand their restoration to him., boil the
mother and her brother being unable to
provide for them; as they should ybe cared
for. +. .si5ggs IA
The court expresses the hope that res
Election will satisfy the respondent that
her own happiness and, st abovesSta IL, the
welfare of her children imperatively de-
mand that She should accept her hus-4
bands invitation and, return to the COM
forts and tprote tion OF his home; and
with the view Of bringing about this res
Cancellation, the case is remanded to tile
Circuit Court, with direction to9enters an
order requiring the prompt delivery8ofi
the older of the children, William
Thomas, to the father. AS to the younger
child, ELLA Charlotte, the case Is directed
\ to be continued for six months. and II
within that meetheAwite returns with
8the child to her husbands home, tho
case will be dismissed 4 but II at the end
of that time she has not done So, an order
will be entered requiring the immediate
delivery Of that child to the father. Sc
lie shall desire 1t.
Telegraph Company Loses.
In the case Of the Postal-!Telegrap phi
Court court 81 D'1 Law ana chansery of Norfolk S
city. the opinion OF the court, delivered
by Judge Buchanan Is an q firmance Of
the Judgment Of the lower court. The,
case grew out Of the recovery by the
defendant in error OF 500 for the failure
of the company to transmit a message
delivered to one Of its messenger boys
II.
(. The telegraph company In, its ppeal
contends that the statute Of Virginia 4ap-
plicable In the case wa $ Unconstitutional,
In SO far as it violates the Interstate,
Commerce clause Of the SF'ederaS Constl-
tuition The court holds that the de-
fault in this case occurred wholly With.
in the State and not In another State,
and quotes IN support Of Its ce q
Supreme Court in Ia Georgia case which
differs from this case only in the re-
spect that in the Georgia case the mes
sage in question III was sent from one
point in Georgia to another, and was
not delivered after transmission The
opinion Of the court deals wholly with
the question Of jurisdicti on raised by
tho appellants. St5
Oriental Company Wins.
In the case Of the: Oriental Lumber
Company vs.. tho Blades Lumber Com,
pany an interesting case involving the
question OF verbal contracts, the opinion
of the court written stby Judge John a.
Buchanan reverses the judgment of the
Court Of Law and Chancery of Norfolk
city and rcmnnds the cause.
In this case tho Oriental Lumber Com
pany entered into fa.g contract with the
American Lumber Company 81 to deliver