Newark evening star and Newark advertiser. [volume] (Newark, N.J.) 1909-1916, 1913-12-23
IN
LEGAL MOVE TO
SEE GRANDCH|LD
Vice-ChanCeIIOr Stevens Agrees
TO Request by ex-Dover
Resident.

Vice-Chancellor Stevens today in
Chancery Court granted a petition
submitted in behalf of Albert e. c.
Mindermann. of 173 North Fifth
street. this city. Mr.. Mindermann
asked to have the court grant to him
the privilege of seeing his grandson
at stated periods and also to have
the grandchild visit his grandpar-
ents.
Mr.. Mindermann is a reporter for
the Newark Evening News. He has
reported the proceedings for num-
ber of years in Vice. Chancellor
Stevens's court
Mr.. Mindermann's recourse to the
law in order to be permitted to see
his grandchild is said to have been
caused by friction in which religious
differences have entered. The mother
of the child is. a Catholic and Mr..
Mindermann is of different faith.
Mr.. Mindermann's son, father of
the child that figures in the case,
died several years ago. His home
was in Dover where the Mindermann
family is well known The Minder-
mann child is now in Dover where
the mother lives with her family.
The case took up but "A short time,
as Nice-Chancellor Stevens after
hearing the motion of Mr.. Minder-
mann ruled that the child should be
allowed to visit it's grandparents, and
the only argument between Attorney
Arthur Egner, of McCarter & Eng
lish, representing Mindermann, and
Attorney Benjamin w. Ellicott. of
Dover, who represented Mrs. Fred
ericlk w. Il. Mindermann, was as to
the proper time for the visits
The petitioner claimed that while
his son lay on his death bed he had
called his father and mother to his
bedside and in the presence of his
wife, made them promise TO look after
the boy. Mr.. Mlndermann declared
in court that the child had been
made their heir, as he is their only
grandchild. He further declared that
on numerous occasions whom he and
his wife had called at the mothers
home in Dover to visit the child they
had been refused admittance. al
though they both carried presents for
the boy and the mother.
In defense of the mother not allow
ing the boy TO see his grandparents
on the one specified visit Attorney
Ifllicott claimed that the house was
full of guests at the time and the
grandparents had not notified her in
advance of their coming. She also
said that although she and the boy
had been invited to spend a vacation
with the grandparents in the Cats
kill mountains the past summer. the
invitation came only h few hours be-
fore the grandparents were ready to
start, and therefore she was unable
to 90. had she so liked
Both attorneys at times made ref
erence TO the fact that both the child
and mother were in the building and
said If the vice. chancellor cared to
speak with either of them they would
be brought before him. Tho vice
chancellor replied as the case was
so clear there was no reason for
bringing the boy or his mother be-
fore him.
In their bill no reference was made
TO the mother except to say that she
was of a violent temper and they
thought that was one of the principal
reasons why the father had asked the
grandparents to watch over the lad
after he was gone.
After further argument between
the opposing attorneys as to the
proper time and place for the visits
of the grandparents to take place.
Vice Chancellor Stephens ruled that
the grandparents be given the Gus
tody OF the child for one week. dat
ing from the Sunday after Christ
mas, until the Sunday after New
Years: two weeks in August. and
that they also be allowed to see the
child on Sunday afternoons at the
home of some mutual friend in
Dover, about once every fortnight.
At the request of Attorney Egner,
the court made a verbal order that the
paternal grandparents be allowed to
see the child for ten minutes today
in vice-Chancellor Howell's cham
bers.
Miss Jessie Mindermann, an aunt
and a nurse, who accompanied the
to court also asked to
see the boy, but counsel for the de-
fendant refused.
The elder Mr.. and Mrs. Minder-
mann were closeted with their grand
child for ten minutes.
The scenes which accompanied the
meeting of the litigants in the court
corridor showed that religious diff
ferences is the fundamental cause of
the situation.