Case Name: WILLINGHAM v. MATTOX
Court: Supreme Court of Georgia
Jurisdiction: Georgia
Decision Date: 1906-03-24
Citations: 125 Ga. 106
Docket Number: 
Parties: WILLINGHAM v. MATTOX.
Judges: All the Justices concur.
Reporter: Georgia Reports
Volume: 125
Pages: 106–107

Head Matter:
WILLINGHAM v. MATTOX.
Submitted February 21,
Decided March 24, 1906.
Habeas corpus. Before Judge Proffitt. City court of Elberton. January 20, 1906.
Lit Willingham brought habeas-eorpus proceedings against Mattox, to secure the custody and control of Viola Willingham, a minor, alleging that he (Willingham)’ is the child’s father. It appears from the evidence that the child was born several years after the plaintiff and his wife (Viola’s mother) had separated, and a short, time after he had filed his libel for divorce. The evidence is conflicting on nearly all points. The plaintiff testified, that he is the-child’s father; that although he was not living with the mother-for some time previous to the child’s birth, he had access to her and begat the child; that he had given the mother money and provisions, with which to support the child, and had only allowed the mother to keep the child as an accommodation to her. The defendant introduced testimony to the effect, that the plaintiff had denied on several occasions that he was the father of the child; and that he had relinquished all claim he might have to it, and abandoned it. The child, who is fourteen years old, testified that the plaintiff had never given her a cent, except when her mother died, when he gave her twenty-five cents to help defray the funeral expenses; and that she prefers to remain where she is, in the custody of Mattox,, than to live with the plaintiff. The defendant swore that the-child's mother, just prior to her death, consigned the child into his keeping until she shall become of age or marry. There was testimony to the effect that each claimant was a,fit and proper person to-have the control of the child. The judge awarded her to the custody of Mattox, and Willingham excepted.

Opinion:
Beck, J.
It appearing that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in-awarding the child to the respondent in this habeas-eorpus proceeding,, his judgment will not be interfered with by this court.
Judfimenl affirmed.
All the Justices concur.
Joseph N. Worley, for plaintiff. Samuel L. Olive, for defendant..