The Salt Lake tribune. [volume] (Salt Lake City, Utah) 1890-current, 1909-10-20
WHAT HAS BECOME
OF HELEN HALL?
Child Has MysteriousIy Disap.
pearcd and Court Only Knows
Where She is.
ANSWER OF ORPHANS
HOME INSUFFICIENT
lone Hall, Through Mother, Is
Making Second Attempt TO
Recover Child.

There was one development at tho
hearing on the petition OF Mrs Alice
V. ShrcVc for n writ OF habcaS corpus
to recover the custody of her thrcc year
old granddaughter, Helen Hall, in dis
trict Judge Lewis s court Tuesday night
and that was that the child has mvs-
teriously disappeared and ii is not
known at this time who has it in
charge
Tho alternative writ was issued
against tho board oil directors Of the
Orphans Homo and Day Nursery, to
which the child was committed April
29 last, but in its answer to tho writ,
that institution claimed that somo time
before the writ was issued it returned
the child 10 the custody of tho Juvenile
court and does not now know where
1t is.
Accordingly. s. +. Armstrong. who
represents Mrs. Shreyc, Will have some
what of JOB TO lind out who has
the child and, IL successful in that re
spect, will, no doubt, have to bring
another writ against it's present Gus
todIau in order To carry ont his inten-
tion Of attacking the consiitutionality
of the juvenile court law and the right
or the court 10 take a child of tender
stranger
Second Attempt.
Little Helen was taken in charge by
the juvenile court last April on thC
ground that her mother. lone Hail, be.
ing an inmate OF a houSc of i'll rcputc,
was not a fit and proper person 30 have
her custody and care. She was then
turned over to tho Orphans Home and
Day Nursery, Her mother, through Il
woman friend, filed petition for a
guardian. and attempted to secure
custody that WAY, but that petition was
dismissed when the grandmother 5 case
was begun.
This petition was up for hearing be
fore Judge Lewis Tuesday night, but
nothing was done in the matter, as the
answer of the directors of the nursery
was held 10 be insufficient and their
attorney Farley j. Christensen. was
given until today noon to amend It,.
The further hearing on the petition was
continued until Thursday morning at
10 clock.
The attorney for the defendants at
first filed a demurrer TO the petition
on the ground that it did not state facts
sufficient 10 warrant the relief sought
but the court held that a demurrer
was not proper pleading 10 file in
an application for a writ of habeas
corpus. hC dllpIn"N lHcn Illcu
motion 10 quash the writ on the same
ground and that was promptly denied
by the court
Then the answer was filed. in which
il was set out that the child was com
mitted TO the nursery by tho juvenile
court April 20, last, but that prior
70 the issuing OF the writ OF habcas
corpus the directors of the nursery re-
turned the child 10 the juvenile court
and did not now know who had Gus
tody of it.
Objects to Answer.
The attorney for the petitioner OBJ
iectcd to the answer and claimed that
il did not comply with the habcas cor
pus act in that it did not state by whom
at what time and by what authority
the child was delivered back to the
court. After considerable argument by
the attorneys on the objections raised,
Judge Lewis held that the answer was
insufficient for the reasons stated. and
gave the attorney for The defendants
until today noon 10 amend the answer
and then continued the hearing until
Thursday,