The Bourbon news. [volume] (Paris, Ky.) 1895-19??, 1911-11-24
Decision in Bedford Hamilton
Case.

Judge DenlS Dun0On recently hand
ed down written opinion in the habeas
corpus proceedings of H. H. Hamilton
against +. z. Bedford to regain pos
session Of his son, which had been
placed in the hands of Mr.. Bedford bv
the Louisville Widows and Orphans
Home, and by the decision of the court
the child was ordered placed in the
hands of the plaintiff.
The case attracted great deal of
attention and occupied several days in
taking testimony. Upwards of ore
hundred witnesses were examined.
The opinion handed down. by the court
is as follows:
The court permitted the parties to
this action wide scope in the intro.
duction of testimony so that all the
facts might be made evident. From
the evidence introduced the court feels
warranted in the opinion that the fol-
lowing facts were proven beyond a
doubt:
First. That the infant child, Carey
Holton Hamilton, is child of white
bl )od.
"SeconC. That the plaintiff, H. H.
Hamilton, is his father, and that he is
now a man of sober and Industrious
habits, kindt & his family and capable
of supporting this child in reasonable
manner.
Third. That this child was born
of lawful wedlock.
Fourth. That while very young,
his father surrendered his custody to
the Christian Church Widows and Orr
phans Home. which he had legal
right to do; that said Home adopted
| oh xuhi oh hnA ko ;-Lk l..
under it's charter, and afterwards
transferred the custody of said child to
the defendant. F. z. Bedford. which it
had the legal right to do, if said Bed
ford was proper person to have the
custody of said child.
Fifth. That the defendant, F. P.
Bedford. now has, and has had for
some twenty years, in the community
where he resided during those years,
the reputation of living in adultery
with negro woman, and has had the
reputation of being the father CT two
children, claimed to have been left on
his doorstep by unknown parties, and
that said negro woman is the reputed
mother of said children, one of which
children is girl now twenty-one years
of age, living in the house of the de-
PENDANT, and who has been formally
adopted by the defendant, and to
whom tract of three hundred and
twenty-one acres of land has been con-
veyed by the defendant; that this girl
has been denied admission to a school
for white children and to a dancing
school for white children because of
the report that she had negro blood in
her veins.
Fifth That few. if any, of the de-
tendant's neighbors visit his home,
and that he and his family rarely, if
ever, visit the neighbors' homes, which
is evidently due to the fact that the
people in that community do no ap-
prove of his conduct and believe the
rumors which have been current
with these facts proven beyond a
doubt the question arises what is the
duty of the court in seeking to promote
the best interests of this boy.
The parent is the natural guardian
and protector of his child, and the
privileges and obligations attendant
thereon are enjuined by both Statute
and Divine Laws, and until the parent
has done something to deprive him of
this duty and obligation, there is no
power to relieve him or deprive him
thereof.
The plaintiff in this case surrend-
cred his child to the Orphans Home,
which ne had the legal right to do, but
the doing of which does not place him
in a very enviable light before the
court. The facts and circumstances
surrounding this act do not appear
very clearly in this record, but cir
cumstanees may readily be conceived
that would justify an INDECENT father
in doing this for the welfare of his
child
1T was the duty of the Orphans
Home to find suitable home for this
child, and if a suitable home had been
found for this child, then the father,
under the law of Kentucky, would be
without recourse to reclaim his child.
But, if the Orphans Home either by
its negligence or, as in this case, by
being imposed upon, surrendered said
child into the hands of a person who
should not have it, 1t is plainly the
duty of the court, upon application Of
the parent, to restore said child to it's
parents custody. which brings US back
to the question. is the home of the de-
PENDANT, Frank Bedford, the proper
place for this child. and is it for the
best interests of the child to remain
there.
Every child is entitled to parental
leve, guidance and protect and it
is entitled to grow up in an atmosphere
and in home where it can have its
own self respect if all the facts be
known to it. and where it can have the
respect of the good people of the COM
munity in which ne lives, and no
amount of money or property can COM
pensatc a child fer the loss of any of
these rights.
Ii the defendant has lived in the
atmosphere in which this record shows
he has lived Tor twenty years. and
having no more regard for the good
opinion of the good people of his ccm-
munity than this record shows he has
had, and is now fitty-five years of age,
and there is no ground for the pre-
sumption that he will care more for
the respect of his neighbors in the
Future than no hal in tho naSt and in