The farmer and mechanic. [volume] (Raleigh, N.C.) 18??-19??, 1914-08-11
Judge George Conner Denies
Mr.. J. Sprunt NeWt0n'S
Petition
BOTH PROPER PERSONS
ChiId's Tender Age Moves
Judge To Order That Oaugh-
ter of Four Be Remanded To
Care of Its Mother Thus
Ending Chapter of Famous
Case

IN haDeaS corpus proceedings be.
fore Judge George w. Connor yeSter-
day. Mr.. j. Sprunt Newton. of Fay
ettevilie. was denied the custody OF his
four year old daughter. hi child
was to the custody OF her
mother in whose possession she has
been since the separation in August.
1913 In announcing his Judgment,
Judge Common expressly stated thai
while he found by overwhei ing evi-
dence that both Mrs. Newton and Mr..
Newton were proper persons for The
rearing Of the child. yet in view Of
the tender 3 Of the girl and the
ample provision for welfare. the best
interests of the child would be sub
served by placing her in the custody
Of the mott r. 1t was So ordered
The sepa- alton divorce of
MIR. j. Sprunt ewto and Mrs. Eliza
Newton his wife was occasioned by
the litigation between Mrs. M. w. Me
Arthur, Adam Macarthur and he Citi-
zens National Bank OF Norfolk. and
j. Sprunt Newton, ia which the Nc
ArthnrS were the defendants IN a suit
involving a $4,000 note, SIGNATURES
10 which were claimed to be spur
Gus. The case was highly involved
ana went the rounds OF the courts.
FINALLY, after u verdict against the
McArthurS the case was appealed and
II stands now awaiting trial. on tho
bill Of exceptions.
Occasion OF Separation.
Mrs. j. Sprunt Newton wps a NC.
Arthur. and a of Mrs. Ri. w.
Macarthur. In the ~tigatio in which
the accusation Of spurious signatures
were made and opposed, and in which
the most famous hand writing ex-
perts in the United States were
brought in to testify. the Newton
fa ~, W. ~A-
laniiiy was divided against itself.
There was NJ other disagreement
They had been married since 1907 In
August, 1912. they separated. the
daughter going with Mrs. Newton.
Mr Newton filed a petition for a writ
OF hapeaS corpus before Judge Walter
Clark for tie custody OF the child in
July. 1914. The writ was made re-
turnaoie before Judge George Con-
nor.
At the time the writ was sued the
report was circulated that Mrs. Nc
ArtndT was attempting to spirit the
chli1 away to Florida. The press
tooh the matter up and it was stated
ehat Mr. j. Sprunt Newton had al
.esed TINS in his petition. Mir. New
ton immediately made A spirjted de-
hlai IN which he disclaimed any such
argument. stating that there was M
Such complaint in the petition for 4
WRIT 81 habeaS corpus for the custody
OF the child.
Case Heard Yesterday
yesterday the case was heard ha.
fore Judge Connor. All the princi.
pals were present. The testimony
was presented entirely in af#dayit
iorrn with no oral evidence. The
reno OF the attida Wits on both sides
- ne case was to sh ow the fact that
~ newton. on the one side. and MRS.
Hr"toh' on the other side. were
pioper persons for the custody of tho
chi'd- The petition did not set f,rih
'"| causes or the incidents ia taa
Scpafation- 1t merely stated the sen-
aiatton as a fact. Judge conorr
spent the better part of the dav IN
me reading Of the aftidayits Let
night ne mad made no written ora..
~ Iie eiiect but ne stated that l., a
~ VpoudeFance OF evidence he fo,,nd
.na' Mr- = Sprunt Newton was nv nd
H0ahS an improper person ia h.ya
ne custody of the child. but that i,
we" or the fact that the mother .x..
IA every way fitted for the c.,. or
me child and in view of her ,anan.
80. the petition for custody hy tha
nI was denied and the child was
iu 10 the care Of the u,otaar
representing Mr.. j. Sprunt Nv
70" were Messrs. j.. O.. Carr wiz.
Minse'h' J. r.. Fowler. Clinton NJ.
V~toh was represented by Vic.or 9
n'yaH. or Durham r n. Simms nr
e'sn. rankin Mcneil. OF RAJ
Ign ana j. A. Mclean Of Eav.t1a-