Evening capital news. (Boise, Idaho) 1901-1927, 1916-10-23
FIGHT TO REGAIN
POSSESSION OF
THEIR CHILDREN
It'll NV
Hearing on Writ of Habeas
Corpus Is Ordered by Su-
preme Court in North
Idaho Case.

The supreme court has ordered a
nearing on a writ of habeas corpus to
be held before Judge w. w. Woods Of
the First judicial district in the mat
ter OF the application of Mr.. and Mrs
william Priest of Wardner to regain
possession OF their two children, Ruth
ana William, taken from them q few
years ago, committed to the children's
nome at Lewiston and later adopted
py other families. Judge Wood has
cverruled the demurrers interposed by
tne FOSTER parents and set the hearing
OF the case for Nov. /. One of the
main questions involved is the right of
parents to recover children legally
adopted to foster parents after their
commitment to the chldren's home.
The case Is. therefore, attracting gem
kral interest
ON September II, 1914, Carlton Fox,
tnen county prosecutor, and who is
NOW exerting himself as attorney for
fhe parents. started proceedings in the
probate court in which he alleged that
Mr. and Mrs. Priest, on account of their
addiction to liquor and the resultant
conditions in their home, were i'm
proper persons for the upbringinv of
their two children, Ruth and William.
Efie recommended that the children be
furned over to the Home Finding scot
sety at Lewiston as wards of this court
w. e. Worstell, then probate Judge.
after hearing of the complaint. coin
cided In the views of the prosecutor
and issued an order sending the chill
nren to the Lewiston home. In issuing
fhe order, the court took occasion 10
remark that the act of depriving the
parents of their children might be an
incentive to the par, nts to effect their
pwn reform as basis warranting
their children to be restored to them
Sater.
COMMITTED TO HOME.
The children were in due course sent
TO the Lewiston home. 1t was not long
thereafter that the parents complained
TO the court that they were being de-
MED by the superintendent the right to
correspond or see their children. In
the course of "A short time later. the
parents complained that their children
had been adopted out by the superin-
tendent. The probate judge wrote the
superintendent of the reports which
had come to him, and reminded him
that In the nature of the case, the chill
nren being wards of the court, the
SchiC . management n0Q no right to
adopt out the children.
There was considerable correspond-
ence along these lines, which was Ia
ken up and continued by Probate Judge
X. f. Weniger, when he went into Of
fee at Wallace. In one letter, replying
to Judge Weniger Superintendent
Chase, of the home. gave his assurance
that the society would do nothing to
har restoration nf ot,i
parents.
Judge Weniger recited the showings
made by the parents of their self-re-
form, which he supported, after most
careful investigation of the circum-
stances, with his Endorsement of their
representations that they would be able
to give the proper care to their chill
dren in home in which the circum-
stances and SURF 1undings would be all
that could be desired
SAY AGENT BLOCKED PARENTS.
On October 2, 1915, Judge Wenigcr
issued an order removing the children
from the home at Lewiston, ana restor-
Ing them to their parents. 1t was
shortly after this date that the tangle,
which is charged in the present pro-
ceedings against tho superintendent of
the home, began 20 appear on the sur
face at this distance. II appears from
the court record that on October II,
1915, nine days after the issuance of
the courts order. Superintendent
Charles l.. Chalfant of the home society
made complete release to w. E. Tip
ton and wife of Ruth Priest. Mr.. and
Mrs. Priest allege that they were not
notified Of the intended adoption pro-
ceedings. and that under the circum-
stances they were not present at the
said proceedings; and they further rep
resent that the society had no right
70 make any disposition Of binding