Year: 1870




The court room of the Fifth District Court


was the point of attraction this morning,


the crowd drawn thither for the purpose OF


ascertaining what final disposition would be


made of the case of the alleged detention of


wife by her husband in the Louisiana


Retreat Insane Asylum.


Promptly at the hour of ten o'clock, Sister


Severina. the Sister in charge of the Re.


treat accompanied by another one of the


Sisters of the Retreat, attired in the garb OF


their order, came in and took their seats.


they were followed in few minutes by


Mrs. Landreaux, the mother of the defend


ant, with Mrs. FRANKIE. the defendant,


leaning upon her arm, both ladies


vailed. The latter were attended by several


other ladies'.


Mr.. Gilmore, the attorney for the hus-


band, spent the short time which inter-


vened before the regular opening of the


court in conversation with the sisters,


and at one time withdrew with them to


the Clerks Office adj dining, where paper.


which had been drawn up by the counsel,


was presented and signed by Sister Sew


erina.


After the usual ''calling and fixing OF


cases." which takes place every Saturday III


the courts. and after short argument upon


an exception in another case, the Sheriff, IN
obedience to the command OF the court,
called the case of the State eX rel. Mrs. Pau


line FRANKIE VS.. Lester Severina.


By order of the court the physicians, sum-
moued in the case as witnesses, were ban
ished to the Clerks office until such time as
they might be wanted.
Mr.. Gilmore here read the paper alluded
to above, as having been signed by Sister
Severina, which proved to be simple return
to the writ, in which was set forth that the
lady was held by order of the husband.
The first witness proposed to be intro.
duced, a physician, was then called by Mr..
Gilmore. Mr.. Cazabat objected. upon the
ground of the non jurisdiction OF this court,
coptending that the matter belonged eX-
clusively to the Second District Court to


pronounce an Introduction. He would,


therefore, object to any evidence having for
its object to prove the alleged insanity OF
his client.
The question before this court, he said,


was simply whether his client was legally or
illegally held in the said Retreat. The court
knew that.the husband had no right to keep
his wife for twelve months within the walls
OF an insane asylum without an order OF
court. If the husband thought or knew his
wife to be insane, he should have made
| the proper application to have her inter.
dicted before the proper tribunal, the Second
District Court.


Mr.. Gilmore replied that it was strange
that when they came to show that the lady
was insane and was not responsible for the
petition she had Fl led, that it was objected
to- He contended that II the Second Dis
trict Court was the only court to pronounce
the decree of interdicton, the plaintiff
should have applied to that court for relief
in this matter. He contended that if the
court was satisfied that the lady could not
possibly have drawn up or dictated the ap-
plication presented the application ought 10
be dismissed. He thought that it the court


was satisfied the lady was better off at the
Louisiana Retreat, where she had been
placed by the husband at the suggestion of


her physicians and by and with the consent
aud knowledge of her friends than by be-
ing set at large, it ought dismiss the appli-
cation.


Mr.. Cazabat contended in reply that SO
long as the lady had not been lnterdicted,


she had the legal right to appear before the
court to file an application and to demand
the relief she sought.


In answer to why he did not go to the
Second District Court, he replied that il


was not his purpose or desire to prove her
| insane when he knew she was not.
Counsel here became quite excited and
| said the only wonder was that the wife was
not insane, having been for three hundred
and sixty five days confined with lunatlcs
and maniacs. His client might be OF weak
mind, but was this sufficient reason Tor
the husband to conine the partner OF his
| ioys and woes within the walls ct an insane
| asylum! -,
He went on to argue the rights OF citi-
zen under the writ of habeas corpus, and tC
show that any Judge must entertain peti'
| ton based upon said writ, and cited the law
| to show that there must be an order o.
court causing the imprisonment, or else the
| writ be allowed to issue. All that was
| necessary for him to prove, was that his
| client was illegally imprisoned. He had
shown it in the entire absence OF any judi
| cial order.


| He asked, in conclusion, that his client be


restored to liberty without inquiring into
| her sanity or insanity, He did not think
| that the power of the husband was so great


that he could contine his wife to an insane


asylum, and refuse to allow her to be placed
| in the charge of her mother, where she
| could receive that care and attention which
| no one else could render SO well
| Mr.. Gilmore again addressed the court


upon questions of law bearing upon the
| powers of the court, to release or to refuse
| the release of the plaintiff.


| He wanted to show that the facts con
| tanned in the petition were untrue. he
| said that if such petitions were entertained
| all the insane persons in the State would be
| before the court for release. He alleged


that he did not believe that judicial orders
| had been issued in one case out OF ten o
| those incarcerated in the insane asylums IN


this State. AS a general thing, an lnterdlc-
| ton was only necessary where property wa:
| involved. Such was not the case In this
| instance. He did not think the ex parte
| application should be granted without IN
| yestigat1on. He thought the matter ought


to be healed without feeling or without ap
peals to the passions of either side.


The court said it did not think 1t was en-
| powered to inquire into the sanity OF plain
! tiff. The Second District Court was the


proper tribunal to pass upon such questions
| The law presumed that party was sVpe
| until he or she should be proved to be m
sane, and as vet the lady applying to the
| court for discharge from imprisonment
| within the walls of an insane asylum, Where
| she had been placed upon simple order
| from the husband, had not been proved 70
! be SO.


! The husband had not that supreme con-
! troll over wife that he could cOnflne her III
| an insane asylum because be thought hel
mind diseased. He must first apply to the
| Second District Court and have her lnder-
dicted if she was insane. Whether there
was property in the case or not made nc
shadow of difference.
In conclusion, Judge Leaumont said: Lei
| the plaintiff be discharged from the custod!
! of the Sisters of the Louisiana Retreat. anC
restored to the full possession OF her I'D
erty."


THE GROVER & BAKER SEWING MACHINE


Every lady who has not already suppllet
herself with sewing machine should by al


means call at the agency of these machines
:. .,o oor,er of Canal and Dryades street