The Brookings register. [volume] (Brookings, Brookings County, S.D.) 1903-1971, 1907-12-05
THE BROWNIES IN COURT
Witnesses Against Mother Stretch
the Truth Says the Court

Recently the Register published an
article rejecting upon the character of !
Mrs. browne who resided in Bookings
ABOUT year ago, and which was clip.
ped from Sioux Falls paper. The
article slipped through without proper
consideration or ii would never have
appeared. Mrs. browne while in this !
city conducted herself in a ladvlike |
manner, appearing to be lady of re- |
| finement. She gave her mother and |
son every attention while here and we |
have heard no word detrimental to her
good name, other than that published |
! by the Journal, which has a yellow |
streak in its makeup. The following
taken from the New York Press shows |
that the lady has been vndcated by
the court and will have her son also:
Despite the testimony of different
witnesses against her in the suit
brought by her husband. Henry Rus
sell browne for the custody of their
child, Mrs. Louis ForSythe browne
won victory to-day when Vice Chan
cellor Stevens decided the controversy
ought finally to be determined in New
York city when the suit brought by
the husband for divorce should be
heard. The Vice Chancellor was of
the opinion that many of the witnesses
had drawn on their imaginations and
that Mrs. browne was innocent of
charges brought against her.
Daniel p. Hays of Hays & IIersh-
field of No. 1l5 broadway New York
city. in the final argument for the de-
Tense said he thought the woman was
the proper person to have the custody
of the child and that letters could
prove that she had been good
mother. He said witnesses had been
introduced who gave evidence as to
occurrences that were made to look
differently from what they really were.
He believed browne had been embit-
tered by hearing the testimony of GER
tain witnesses, which the lawyer
hoped would have no bearing on the
case. He said browne never had paid
much attention to the child and that
it was not his love for the little one
that caused the court fight, but simply
desire to defeat his wife
Vice Chancellor Stevens asserted
emphatically he discredited much of
the testemony against Mrs. browne
He said it was true Mrs. browne even
as the mother of the child, had no
right to take the boy away surrepti-
tOusly from New York city to Dakota
with her 1t was in that state that
Mrs. browne obtained a divorce from
her husband who is bringing cOun-
ter suit. In the hearing of that suit,
the Vice Chancellor said, the custody
of the child could finally be deter
mined. Nevertheless he bound. the
plaintiff by $4,000 bond to permit
the mother to see the child on Fridays
at an hour to be determined by coun-
sci.
Before the child is taken out of the
jurisdiction of the New Jersey courts
the bond must be filed to insure the
keeping Of the child within the limits
Of New York. The time for the filling
Of the bond has been fixed by the court
the boy was remanded to the care of
the New Jersey counsel in the case,
Charles f. Corbin, for the father. The
fitness or unfitness of the mother was
not considered by the court. The Vice
Chancellor thought, however, that the
proper place for the littl e
boy was in New York, as it had been
the home of the family. Under New
York law Mrs. browne is still the wife
of browne, as the Dakota divorce is
not recognized in the former state.
Another fact indicating Mrs. browne
had practically gained victory was
an order that browne was to pay the
costs of the legal fight, which has
lasted several weeks. On hearing the
decision Of the court Mrs browne be-
came hysterical and cried:
They shall not take my boy away
from me-"
When the Vice Chancellor retired
the mother rushed into the corridor
where the boy, just 10 years old, was
waiting, and caught him in her arms
Russell, dear, they are going to
take you away from me" she said
The boy said that he would not leave
his mother, and the cries of both were
heard by many leaving the courtroom