The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1906-09-12
she NAY KEEP IT
Another Turn in Incubator
Baby Case.
Supreme Court Asked to Make
an Order.
FEAR SHE MAY LEAVE
Claimed That hrs. BIeakley
Would Quit the State.
Judges Refused to Interfere
With Her Actions.
FEAR SHE NAY LEAVE

At a special session in chambers this
morning, the supreme court justices
refused to issue an order sought by at
torneys for Mr.. and Mrs. James G.
Barclay to compel Mrs. Charlotte E.
Bleakley and the famous incubator
baby to stay within the state of Kan
sas and the Jurisdiction of the court
until the issues in the case are finally
decided.
The proceedings were Of secret ma
ture, and were presented to the court
by John H. Atwood and Alexander
Mitchell, both representing the Bar
clays. They informed the court that
Mrs Bleakley and the much-sought
for baby had returned to Kansas
They said that she was preparing to
run away again before her case could
be heard, and sacrifice the $500 bond.
II necessary, to keep possession of the
child she claims is her own The Bar
clay attorneys wanted the supreme
court to put Mrs. Bleakley under
heavy bonds to stay in the state until
the case is settled.
Only four of the supreme court jus
tees were in the city, and they divid-
ed on the questions at ISSUE The re-
suit was that the motion presented
was not allowed, as it takes four JUS
$1,000 - - -AAe-Js1--~ 49,
court.
Mr.. Atwood and Mr.. Mitchell stated
to the court that it was necessary that
the hearing should be ex parte, for
the reason that if the attorneys for
Mrs Bleakley knew what was on foot
they would at once hustle their client
outside the state.
AS things stand now. Mrs. Bleakley
is still IN possession Of the baby, and
If she has any disposition to get out
-
do so before the seven Justices as
semble next week. It is not likely that
the motion will be renewed at that
time, for Mrs. Bleakley and her baby
may have departed.
VIII Be a Hard Legal Battle.
Indications are that the Barclays are
keeping close track of Mrs. Bleakley
and the baby, and are exercising every
effort to regain possession of the child.
Mrs. Bleakley claims that she gave
birth to the child in a St. Louis institu-
ton, but was made to believe that the
baby died. Instead she claims it was
exhibited at the st. Louis exposition in
an incubator, and was afterwards adopt
ed by Mr.. and Mrs. Barclay. She secur-
ed evidence that the Barclays had her
child and followed the baby and its
foster parents to Indiana 7and secured
possession of the child through habeas
corpus proceedings. She brought the
baby to Lawrence, Kan, where another
legal hight LOOK place, ana the GdICldJ
were awarded the custody of the child.
Mrs. Bleakley, however, managed to
kidnap the child, and went back to IN
diana to the protection Of the friendly
court Afterwards Mrs. Bleakley's at
torneys threw the case into the supreme
court, and the supreme court issued an
order in the nature of supeTsedeas which
suspended the judgment of the Law
renee court pending q hearing in the
supreme court. Under the protection of
this upersedeas order, Mrs. Bleakley
seems to have come back to Kansas
with the baby, and the attorneys for
Mr.. and Mrs. Barclay sought to take
advantage Of the situation by cornpell-
ing her to stay here, and not go back
to the jurisdiction of the Indiana court.
The motion which was presented this
morning by Mr.. Atwood and Mr.. Mitch
ell was as follows:
And now comes the above named
appellees, or defendants in error, Stella
Barclay and James G. Barclay, by their
counsel, Samuel D. Bishop, Alexander
Mitchell and John H. Atwood, and show
to the court that in order to avoid obey
ing the decree and judgment rendered
by the district court of Douglas county,
from which this proceeding is an at
tempted appeal, the said appellant de
PENDANT below fed from the jurisdic-
ton Of the court taking with her the
child which was the subject of said
habeas corpus proceeding, and abstain
ed from keeping said child within the
jurisdiction of the court until an order
was made in said matter by this court
in the nature of q supersedeas, since
which time she has at certain intervals
had the child within the jurisdiction of
this court; that the child is now within
the Jurisdiction of this court; that this
appellee is informed and believes and so
states the fact to be that the said Char
lotte E. Bleakley proposes to take the
child without the Jurisdiction of this
court a few days prior to the time when,
in the regular course Of business of this
court the decision in the mandamuS pro-
ceeding, now pending in this court.wouIG
be rendered SO that If such opinion is
adverse to her, she and the subject of
said habeas corpus proceeding will BE-
beyond the jurisdiction of this court in
which event the purposes of said habeas
corpus proceeding and the decree rem
dered therein will be frustrated and
made nugatory; that the bond. in the
nature Of supersedeas given in this ap-
peal proceeding IS for $500 and that it Is
the purpose of said Charlotte E. Bleak
ley to forfeit the same in the event that
the judgment IS adverse.
Having voluntarily brought this
proceeding in this court. she. has sub
mitted herself to the jurisdiction there
of, voluntarily, and has placed the sub
ject of said habeas corpus proceeding
within the courts jurisdiction and I'M
der its control. and 1t is both right
and proper that this court should re-
ouire a bond, or should make proper
order to the end that whatever its de-
cision in said mandamus proceeding
or said habeas corpus proceeding. that
the Judgment and decree. Of this court
and of the district court of Douglas
county. Kansas. can be enforced.
THAT this application is made ex
parte for the reason that the. counsel of
the said aDpellees as we'll as them
selves, are convinced that If notice
were given of an application for an or
der such as above indicated, that she
would at once repeat the performance
of fight from the state. so that these
applicants and this court would be
poweriess.'