The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1907-04-06
ENDS BABY CASE.
Famous 'sIncubator" Lawsuit Is
Finally Decided.
Supreme Court Says Mother LIS
Entitled to Child.
REVERSE JUDGE SMART
Had Awarded Girl to the Foster
Parents.
Controversy Fought Through
Courts of Two States.
REVERSE JUDGE SMART

By unanimous vote Mrs. Charlotte
E. BIeakley is decided by the Kansas
supreme court to be entitled to the
possession of the child she claims to
be her daughter, in the celebrated
Incubator Baby Case from Douglas
county. This is a reversal of the de-
cision of the Douglas county district
court. The supreme court holds that
the decision of the Illinois court, that
Mrs. Bleakley is the mother of the
child, must be given the same faith
and credit in this state to which 1t is
entitled in the state where it is rem
dered. The syllabus says: "A judg-
ment rendered in the circuit court of
Illinois in habeas corpus for the GUS
Fody of child is res judicata and can
not be questioned by a party thereto
I'm subsequent proceedings brought in
a court in this state upon the same
state of facts"
The history of this Incubator Baby
Case is quite we'll known to the peo-
pie of Kansas. James G. Barclay and
Stella Barclay. his wife. were in charge
Of an exhibit at the St. Louis EXPOSE
ton. They saw while there a child at
the Baby Incubator concession. They
learned that 1T had been placed in
charge of the incubator people in the
month of April, 1904, under the name
Louis. They were informed by this
midwife that Charlotte E. BIeakley,
who resided in Lawrence, Kansas, was
the mother of the child and that 1t was
born February Is, 1904.
It developed in the trial of the case
that Mrs. Bleakley had been Informed
by the midwife that her child was
still-born. Later on, however, Mr.. and
Mrs. Barclay sent an attorney to Mrs.
Bleak1ey and persuaded her to sign
deed of adoption to Mrs. Barclay. Not
admitting that the child was hers, but
merely that the adoption papers were
a means by which Mr.. and Mrs. Bar
clay were to be aided in rescuing from !
the hands of the midwife child of
unknown parentage. Afterwards, |
Mrs. Bleakley became satisfied that |
the child in question was her own |
daughter and she sought to reclaim 1t I
and revoke all part which she had |
taken in surrendering custody to the /
Barclays. The case was tried in the
Illinois court and that court decided /
that Mrs. Bleakley was entitled to the |
custody of the child. She brought the
child from Illinois to Lawrence,
where the Barclays made another eff
fort to regain possession through the |
district court of Douglas county. Judge /
c. A. Smart gave Judgment for the
Barclays. but Mrs. Bleakley kidnapped |
the child and escaped to Illinois and |
placed herself under the jurisdiction |
Nef the court which had decided in her |
favor. Later on she endeavored to /
purge herSelf or contempt Oh the T
Douglas county district court by seek
ing to appeal to the supreme court
from Judge Smarts decision Judge
Smart refused to entertain any motion
made by Mrs. Bleakley'S attorneys and
she instituted mandamus. proceedings
against Judge Smart to compel him to
take up her case The supreme court
decided in favor of Mrs. Bleakley and
in this way the issues were brought
before the supreme court with the
result today in Mrs. Bleakley's favor.
Eugene F. Ware, attorney for Mrs.
Bleakley. who took up her case when
it seemed almost hopeless, said today:
1.-THE decision of the supreme court is
a complete victory for Mrs. Bleakley
at every point l do not know where
Mrs. Bleakley is at the present time,
is absent from Lawrence, 1t is only
temporary. Today's decision ends this
famous case for there is no oppor-
tunity to obtain a rehearing from the
Illinois decision"
w. B. Brownen of Lawrence was
also prominently connected with the
case in behalf of Mrs. Bleakley.
The opinoin was written by Judge
Porter of Wyandotte county.
First Automatic Coupler Decision.
The automatic coupler law passed
by congress in 1892 requiring all
railroads or other common carriers to
supply all cars engaged in interstate
commerce to be supplied with auto
matte couplers so trainmen would not
have to step between the cars to cou-
pie or uncouple them was held to be
fully complied with by the Kansas su-
preme court today when the cars were
so equipped. and it was simply a case
of negligence when a trainman was in
jured on account of a defective
coupler. The case is the first of it's
kind to be decided. 1t was brought to
the supreme court from Sedgwick
Sounty where Henry Rrinkmeier had
Judgment of $500 against
the Missouri Pacific railway company
for injuries received while trying to
couple two cars, one of which had a
defective coupler. Judge Wilson in
he district court held that the federal
statute requiring automatic couplers
the couplers in repair. The supreme
court in reversing the judgment and !
a new trial held that the {
was only liable to exercise :
Tue diligence in seeing that the coup |
ers were in working order and that ]
er the cars were properly equipped. {
City of Topeka Beaten. &
The Shawnee county district court !
8 reversed in the long standing fight :
,ver the Andrew Cook damage suit. :
rhe suit was brought against the city !
W the driver of a coal wagon, who :
an over a pile of manure in an alley :
ipped over and was injured. Cook :
He'd with the city clerk a notice of his :
injury, but did not give the correct To- :
.ation of where the accident occurred :
The city went out and hunted up the :
place, and caused the manure pile to :
,e moved But when 1t came to the :
curt on a demurrer of the city, on 9
he ground that the notice required 8
" Laws had not been properly filed. =
The supreme court says: "A petition