The evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1907-1908, 1907-11-27
4 Will Not Co." Says Child
Awarded by Court
to Father.
GIVE UP SON TOMORROW
ce-Chancellor Stevens ScOrns
Divorce Wife Secured in South
DakOta--Demands Husband
Be Bonded in $4,000 by
Friday.

When Mrs. Louise browne, with her
aged mother and her 1~0-year-old son
Henry Russell, jr., TODD in the corri-
doris of the Chancery Chambers yes
terday afternoon, the scene depicted
was a sad one, and whatever may have
been the indiscreetness of the wife, she
showed plainly that the love of a
mother predominated over everything
else. Vice-Chancellor Stevens had just
given his verdict. in which the custody
of the child was given over to the
father pending the suit for absolute
divorce instituted by the husband. and
which will be heard in the Now York
law courts in the near future.
When the words of the Vice-Chan-
cellor fell on the ears of the mother
and wife, Mrs. browne threw her head
on the lawyers table, and, sobbing
aloud, exclaimed so that she could be
heard in the corridors outside, "If my
eon leaves me it will kill him. and
then, rushing outside of the Chancery
Chambers, she seized the boy around
the neck and told him of the decision
Of the court.
Il will not go, now" said the boy
pettishly, and he too was soon in tears.
There stood the mother with her aims
around the boy and the latter clinging
to his mother.
Inside stood the husband n father
atolid because of his alleged knowledge
that his wife cared naught for him.
but happy in the knowledge that his
son will soon be under his own roof, in
his custody, until such times as his
suit against his wife was finally set
ftled before the courts of New York
State, from which place the wife II
mother had taken her departure with
her boy for South Dakota, where she
secured her divorce not recognized by
the laws of this or New York States.
As the browne party left the Chan
Gerry Court neither wife nor husband
gave each other as much as a glance.
In fact, they left by different routes,
the boy to stay with his mother today
and tomorrow he must spend his
lThanksgiving Day with his father and
then on Friday he will be produced in
court again. where the father will bond
himself in the sum of S10,0 0 for he
bows appearance when wanted and in
the meantime father and son will be
under the authority of the New Jersey
courts until the famous browne case IS
finally settled in New York.
Lawyer Hayes, for the defense, took up
the greater portion of the afternoon in his
summing up for his client. AS he at
tempted to weaken the sworn testimony
of those who had testified against Mrs.
Brownies character, Mrs. browne seemed
10 take on new courage, and whenever
her lawyer would pound the table to pune
1uate q statement in her favor the woman
would show her appreciation by smiles.
Finally she united the veil which covered
her face and became helpful to her lawyer
by picking out desired letters from a big
bundle which the lawyer had before him.
Then, as her lawyer drew a picture OF
young Russell's condition, that he was
Il well cared for boy, TO disprove ~the
statement of witnesses that Mrs. browne
was a woman addicted to drink, Mrs.
browne showed the hrst tender feelings.
She turned her head to one side and tears
streamed down her checks, but quickly
composed herself.
g In summing up Mr.. Hayes implored the
chancellor not to take the boy away
from his mother in face of the fact that
a decision against the mother now might
seriously 'lnjure her chances in New York
State, when the trial takes place.
Here Mrs. browne broke dow and
sobbed aloud.
The vice-Chancellor said, as Mr.. Hayes
sat down;
do not want to hear my reply.
l am very glad to know that !
do NOT have to decide this case on the
TACT OF the mothers character can
only decide this on the law. The child
belongs under the jurisdiction Of tnat
State. The mother stole the child away
from New York and took hin TO South
Dakota. She knew that she could NOT
rake her boy away without the consent oil
s the father. Had Mrs. browne come mere
and sought a divorce on the grounds she
alleged in South Dakota l am free 10
say she could not get One.
That divorce In Dakota is not genuine;
by her illegal act she has violated an
rights to the child. The husband in TINS
case was made the boys guardian. 10
the father belongs the boy.
Ii the mother Ind ties that would bind
her TO this State and would assure her
not going away further fronl the 1urlsdlet
allow the boy to stay with his mother.
The question Of the permanent possession
of the boy must be decided in New York,
and I think the child should be brought
TO New York.
think the child should be committed TO
she charge of his father, and that the
father should be bonded in the sum OF
$40. 0O0, subject 10 the orders of this court.
Mrs. browne being poor should get the
benefit of the testimony In this case and
I am willing, IL requested, to so order that
this testimony be furnished her by the
solicitors for the husband.
I don't feel that | should dispose OF this
child until the bond is completed and
will remand the boy in custody Of Mr..
McDermit and Mr.. Corbin.
The Vice-Chancellor said that a surety
bond would be acceptable to the court.
Lawyers for both sides agreed to allow
the boy to go home with his mother and
remain in her custody until Thursday,
when the father is to nave him and pro-
duce him before the Vice-Chancellor at 9