The Bridgeport evening farmer., 1912-01-12

birth was placed in an incubator to be brought to fufl development. Mrs. A saw her there, and understand ing that Mrs B.. was her mother, and desiring 10 adopt her, procured the execution of documents intending to accomplish that purpose, Mrs B. con tody of Mrs. A., Mrs. B. sued in IT. nnois, alleging that the adoption pa pers were void, and obtained 3udg- ment and custody of the child. Then Mrs A sued in Kansas seeking judgment awarding the child to her. Such judgment was rendered, but on appeal the Supreme Court reversed it on the grounds that the judgment of the Illinois court was controlling, and directed a judgment for Mrs B. Following on the heels of this Judg
 reversed the judgment of the lower court. In this somewhat tangled state of affairs, the child being with Mrs B., Mrs. A., to obtain her employed in turn, delegated this delicate task
 to G. G went to the home of Mrs. B., armed with revolver. Mrs B., refused to release the child, so G., simply used his gun to protect him self, seized ms prize, bore her to a
 buggy and delivered her up to Mrs A. T., through whom G, was acting, was then prosecuted for kidnapping- He set up in justification that, by reason Of the judgment of the Illinois Appellate Court, Mrs A. and not Mrs
 B, was lawfully eE1titled to@taeA child
 The Supreme Court of Kansas in State vs. Tillotson, IF Pacific Reporter, 1039,
 judgment did not affect the Kansas Judgment, which is conclusive, and the fact that defendant was acting upon mistaken view was no justification. Conviction was affirmed.
 RETIRED OFFICER COMPELLED rn the service of the United States
 since by statute he is declared to be a
 part of the army, may wear it's uni
 form, his name is borne upon its reg ister, he may be assigned by his SUI perfor officers to specified duties by
 detail as other officers are, he fg sub-
 ject to the rules and articles Of war, and may be tried, not by a juFys aS court-martial, for any breach Of those
 ru- es, and may finally be dismissed on such trial from the service in dis
 grace. The United States Circuit
 Court in United States vs. Gilmore, 1S9
 Federal Reporter, 761, holds that the two acts of Congress providing that of be entitled to three months pay and
 travel, apply to officers mustered out l of the volunteer service, and not to a retired army officer who resumes his two-thfrds pay from the date of his discharge, and. such officer having re- l ceived such travel pay and allowances fthe United States. is entitled to recover the same. Judge Hand says: A great deal has been said of the hardship Of such a construction, and indeed the hardship is great in compel ing a man \ to refund money which he has long
 since and in good faith spent and | forgotten. As Justice Clifford says in United States svs. Merrill, 76, U. S. 614 these allowances are not gratut'aess but are intended to tide the period af- | ter discharge when civilian has pre-
 sumably no means of support. Such ! is not the case with a retired army of dcer, who resumes his two-thirds pay from the day Of It's discharge. There
 is no period when he is left without
 resources. It is true that in respect
 of the communication of travel and sub sistence, the statute results in most shabby treatment because the govern
 nent requires the discharged officer to find his way home at his own charges
 witch is hardly a generous position for a sovereign to whom he has just vol
 unteered his hfe-'
 JUDGE INsTRUcTs HOW TO
 EVADE SEsNTHNCE--Leo- Hiuson,
 victed for retailing spiritunns liquors
 and sentenced to eight months imp-gs-
 Onment. The trial judge instructed | her, upon passing sentence, that if she | would leave the county and not resurn
 she would not be compelled to serve the sentence of Imprisonment, and directed the clerk not to issue capias i to carry into effect the judgment pro | nouneed until five days after the ad- ! journrnent of the court She left the
 county. and took up her abode in the duJO1iliIS COuHtSs where SnS LSL1-<4lA-Sl until after the expiration of the eight months, when she returned to the
 county in which she was convicted
 Thereupon she was sken in arrest up
 on the eaTGas and was imprisoned in I the county jail Being in jai1 the | trial judge refused to discharge her,
 and she thereupon pe+itiOned for ha-
 beas corpus. The Supreme Court Of ] North Carolina, in the case of EX-
 parte Hinson, 72 Southeastern Report
 CT. BIO, holds that this procedure Of fae | rial iudge fTd not make the sent tenee one of tanishment, or prevent her from
 being imprisoned upon the capias up5n I her return. to the county and afhTms | a judgment denying the writ