The watchman and southron. [volume] (Sumter, S.C.) 1881-1930, 1910-02-19

dents, he expressly states as one of
the reasons for making it, that he
does not wish to undertake the re-
sponsibilities Of rearing them. The
issue, then, is between the petition
er, In the maternal right, and the
paternal grandfather and grand
mother, claiming under deed from
the father. and alleging the mother
70 be unfit to be entrusted with the
rearing of the children. In the deci-
sion OF this issue, the court should
give great, If not conclusive, force to
the witness of the father, expressed
In the deed entrusting the custody
or his children to another fitted to
rear them, If the family relation was
broken not by his own fault but by
the fault Of incompetency of the
mother. On the other hand, If the
family relation was broken, by the
taking Of the children from the
mother and bestowing them on the
respondents against her protest,
when there was not on her part such
improper conduct or incompetency as
to constitute just reason for such
extreme action. then the execution of
the deed. and the taking away of the
children could not be regarded other
than acts in themselves so violative
OF the fathers obligation to both
mother and children as to call for
the interference Of the court in their
behalf.
This we think, presents the ulti-
mate issue in the controversy. The
version of the petitioner has been al
ready set out. The respondents in
their return make the general charges
that tn ptitioner has always been
disrespectful toward her husband and
implacable in her dislike to his fam
lily, and they show that this dis
like extended to unbecoming express
ions of her antipathy in a letter to
her husband. They express the opin-
ion that the former intemperate
habits Of the husband were due to
his unhappy marriage; in support of
their claim that the deed was justi-
fed, and that they should retain the
custody of the children, they intro
duced an affidavit of b. r. Tillman,
Jr.. intended to show the petitioners
unfitness to have charge of her chill
dren. In the affidavit, B. r. Tillman,
Jr., admits that the faults attributed to
him by his wife, then separation, his
own contrition and their consequent
reconciliation avowing, however, that
he has entirely given up the use of
intoxicants. He says that he was
constrained to give the custody of his
children to his father and mother,
because Of the unfitness of his wife to
rear them in that she was selfish,
had taught his children to hate his
family, was arrogant toward him;
showing a disposition to consider
him and his family beneath her. and
in that she he'd very little education
and had expressed ideas upon the
most sacred relations of life, which
were absolutely contrary to the best
interests Of any home, and under
which no child could be properly
raised; he further avows that he
sent the children away with his
mother after his wife had angrily re-
fused permission that they should go
and remain until she had recovered
her strength after the illness from
which she was suffering. His ac-
count Of the separation conflicts
with that Of the petitioner in that he
avows that after he had sent the
children away without her consent,
she left their apartments and refused
to communicate with him until the
children should be returned. He ad-
mits that he made the deed attempt
ing to permanently deprive her OF
them against her bitter opposition.
"We shall not undertake to pass
on the differences between the state
ments of the husband and wife as to
the trouble which led to the separa-
ton. We think there can be no
doubt that the husband brought 1t
on by sending the children away, and
that there was nothing in the con-
duct Of the wife justifying the in
ference that she had forfeited her
right to be with and care for her
children, or showing her to be in
competent or unfit for maternal du-
ties. Her right to the privilege of
having her children is greatly
strengthened by the fact that they
are girls of very tender years. Even
t.