The Topeka state journal. [volume] (Topeka, Kansas) 1892-1980, 1909-08-21

James q. Barclay and Stella Barclay
his wife, citizens and residents of the
state of New York. against Charlotte
Il. Bleakley and Ora Thompson, her
mother, citizens and residents of this
mined by this court who is lawfully
entitled to the care, custody, control.
education and society of a female
child of the age of less than four
scented as Edith Barclay,
On the presentation OF the applica-
ton an order was made upon Mrs.
Bleakley and Mrs. Thompson to pro-
(which was done. Response has been
! filed to the application for the writ,
and the matter now stands submitted
to the court for final order on the ap-
p1cat1on, the response, and certain
written stlpulations between the par
ties WaiviDg proofs. in which written
stipulations 1t is admitted the respec-
tive parties. and each of them, are
tody. control and education of the in
FAINT child.
1T is further stipulated the only
question presented to this court for
parties, under the stipulation and plead
ings, has the legal right to such Gus
tody.
LAS CLEANED from the record, the
facts, briefly summarized, are as fol-
lows:
Charlotte E. B1eakley is the natural
mother Of the child. It's premature
birth occurred in lying in hospital or
Mo, in the month of February, 1904.
and it was placed by the person in
charge of such hospital or sanitarium-
in one of the baby incubators exhibited
at the exposition held at that city dur
ing the year 1904. Stella Barclay first
saw the child while it was being so
exhibited in the incubator, became in
terested In its growth and development
a. L
child that she instituted an inquiry
into its history and parentage with
view to it's final adoption as her child.
This inquiry revealed the facts above
stated and a correspondence between
the mother of the child and Mrs. Bar
cay, in many respects most touching,
indeed, resulted in the natural mother
rehnquishing all claim to the child and
formally executed by the REALTORS and
the natural mother of the child, and
her husband, under the laws of the state |
of Missouri. This deed was formally |
cuted with full knowledge of all the |
facts, was delivered to the Barclays
with an order on the person in charge
Of the incubator exhibit at the expo |
which was done. and the deed duly |
in St. Louis. Mo.
Thereafter the Barclays removed |
Ic the city of Moline IN the state of
taking with them the child, /
and caring for it until the 18th day
IF May, 1905. on which day Charlotte |
E. Bleakley, the mother. commenced
labeas corpus proceedings in the cir
;uit court of Rock Island county, Hill
lois, against the Barclays to recover
possession of the child. making the
contention therein that the deed of
Ldoption executed by herself and her
husband to the Barclays for the child
vas void on its face because not in
xx-141 he Low nR he tot
Z Missouri under which it was exc
uted, and further claiming the same
vas procured from her through fraud
nd duress. In this proceedings her
Ter.
The Trial in Illinois.
"a trial of this proceedings was /
lad in that court resulting in a judg
nent in favor of the mother for pos
ession of the child In pursuance of
lis judgment and order the possession
[ the child was transferred from its ]
oster parents to it's natural mother, !
tho, thereupon, at once left the state
f Illinois and the jurisdiction of the I
curt she had invoked. and came to the
ity of Lawrence in this state.
Thereafter. and on the 9Th day of
September, the Barclays commenced
roceedings in habeas corpus in the
istrict court of Douglas county, this I
ate, to repossess themselves of the
1 therein in that court. it was de-
ermined the deed or adoption was
Aid, judgment was entered in favor n
the Barclays for possession of the h
hid.
However, before such order could :,
e executed the respondent therein, a.
ne mother OF the child. fed the r,
lrisdiction Of the court. Proceed 7
ne judgment there rendered to the ~
1preme court Of this state and the 10
of the district court of OF
Douglas county was reversed on the 81
round that the judgment between
lie parties involving the same sub ri
ct-matter heretofore entered in the in
rcuit court of Rock Island county, cC
linois, was final, conclusive and So
hiding, and under the provisions of til
lie federal constitution must be de
ven full faith and credit, hence the st
inject was not open to inquiry in M
lie courts of this state. m
Thereafter the judgment entered
the circuit court of Rock Island ~.
,unty, Illinois came on for review in Il
Ie court of appeals for that state, ~
Id on such review the judgment of
was reversed on the ground, as ..
lown in the opinion delivered in the
urt of appeals, that the deed of
Ioption made between the parties
lder the laws of the state of Mis- CT
uri is in all respects valid and bind nv
Child Brought to Kansas. an
1.-THE order reversing the trial court ed
d not command the return OF the
lid to the Barclays for the reason cel
at conditions rendering such order py
oDar might have intervened he ye
-een the time of the trial in the an
ver court in that state and the de- SCI
sion of the case in the appellate
bunal. tra
serThe trial court of Illinois having to
st control of the child by reason Of NJ
removal by its mother to this
ate no further steps have been