The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1907-06-06
Pitiful Sight in Which Ethel
Burt Hummel Now Finds
Herself.
HABEAS CORPUS HEARD
BY JUDGE ARMSTRONG
DR.. c. NJ. Chandler Does Not
Know Where Child is Now
Located.

The plight of Ethel Burt Uummell
is somewhat pitiful as set forth in the
hearing on Tuesday before Judge Arm
strong of her habeas corpus application
against DR.. c. NJ Chandler. Disgraced
in the eyes Of the world. deserted by
her husband, she is left without even
the consolation of mother in the care
of her child. Pledge of her folly
though it is, she wants it, and is seek
ing through the courts TO recover it.
Ethel Burt was n bright and pretty
stenographer in the Office of the r. e..
Dun company in Salt Lake. She loved
too well, and in January last mar
riage became necessary between her and
Carroll Claude Ilummell, n clerk in
In May her child was born in St
Mark s hospital. Two days after the
birth the child was taken from the
mother, and last week she obtained a
writ of habeas corpus requiring Dr, C..
M Chandler to produce the child IN
court, alleging that it had been wrong
fully taken from her By the doctor.
To Judge Armstrong, Mrs. Hummell
admitted that she had told DR.. Chandler
that she would be unable to care for
it, and asked him to find place for
it. 1t was taken away two days after
its birth and she has been denied all
information as TO its whereabouts. 1t
was only four days after the birth that
she began TO want the child, and then
her mother had urged her to get IT
back She tried TO find out where it
had been taken, and Us a last resort
she had sent for lawyer, n; V. Jones,
and authorized him to take legal steps
against DR.. Chandler
DR.. Chandler appeared in court and
testified that he did not know where
the child now IS, nor did he know the
persons to whom he had given posses
sent to the taking of the child, but
could not remember TO whom he had
telephoned. 1t was taken to mouse
on Hazel street. and Mrs. Arthur had
charge. of il Mt first. There were also
present there when the child was taken
q Mrs. Ensign and a Mrs Lesser. Be
yond these names he knew nothing
had asked him to find a place for the
child, and he had asked her to recon
slider her decision to part with 1T, tell
ing her that afterward 1T would be too
late. IT was an hour after the birth
that he told her this, and he thought
she thoroughly understood him, though
he admitted that he had given her
chloroform. He then told her that she
could not rescind her action after the
child had gone 1t was after this that
he had consented to the child beng
taken away, but he did not know who
had taken it. After studying the mnt-
ter for time he was able to remember
the names of the people on Hazel street,
but he had no idea where the child Is
After argument of the attorneys,
Judge Armstrong Quashed the wit as
against the doctor. Another effort will
be made to find out where the child IS;
Mr.. and Mrs. Hummell have not hyed
together since the marriage, and he has
protested that he knew nothing about
the child 3 whereabouts,
Will Take Further Steps.
Tint Mrs. Hnmmel is determined to
get her child back, if possible, was
learned Tuesday night; over the
telephone Mrs. Hummel, from her home
with her mother, Mrs. A. Burt, at
564 South Third West street, IN,
formed The Tribune that she will
consult an attorney today, and If
further steps toward getting her child
back arc possible she will take them.
Mrs Hummel was asked if she knew
where her child is. She replied that
she has clue. but declined to divulge
it. She said nothing viii be done to-
ward securing return of the child
until an attorney is consulted regard
ing the legal steps that may be taken
in such an action.