Year: 1870

Judge Cardozo of the New York Su-
preme Court delivered decision in the
Lewis kidnapping case as follows


Mrs. Lewis brought an action against
her husband in the State of Massachusetts,
where they both resided, and of which
they were citizens, to obtain divorce


Process in the suit was duly served upon
the defendant. Thus there is litigation
in the courts of Massachusetts between
citizens of that State, and in that light
only is this matter to be considered; for the
circumstance that the defendant claims to
have become a citizen of this State is un-
important and in no way affects the matter
nor presents any new right, because the
change, if made, was after the suit was
brought, and after the order next mention
ed had been served. The Supreme Court
of Massachusetts,, in which the action was
brought having thus jurisdiction OF the
subject matter and of the parties, made an
order which DIR. Lewis evidence shows
was served upon him, awarding the Gus
tody of the child Corinna to the plaintiff.
Mrs. Lewis, during the pendency of the
action. After this the father, DR.. Lewis,
is found within this State with the child in
his possession. Therefore the mother asks
the aid of this Court, the child being
brought by habeas corpus before Spec
ial Term thereof, to restore the child to
her, that she and it may return to their
home and comfy, if nothing else, re-
quires that her request should be granted.
The Court is not asked to enforce an order
of foreign tribunal against one of its own
citizens. No such question arises. 1t is
only asked not to permit a citizen of a
sister State to defeat an order by the
courts of that State between its own citi-
zens, by coming here apparently for the
purpose of evading and avoiding his legit-
innate allegiance. l ought not to and do
not pass upon the questions of fact so elab-
orately discussed before me. have moth
ing to do with them. l find valid order
of a court of a sister State of competent
jurisdiction made in an action between its
own citizens, awarding the custody of a
child to its mother during tendency, and
it is not for me to inquire into the pro-
priety of the order. Whether it was reg
ularly obtained, whether it is erroneous,
whether for any reason modification of
it should be made, are all questions which
belong exclusively and must be addressed
to the courts of Massachusetts, My duty
demands that | should see that the order
is respected, and that duty will only be
performed by my making an order that
| the child he delivered to the mother, and
that suitable protection be given to the
child in the mothers custody and to the
mother in the care and custody of the child
long enough to enable her to return from
our jurisdiction, which she has sought for
the purpose of recovering her daughter to
the State of which she rs citizen (see in
re Derole. s John. 32s.) If Captain Jour
dan, to whom have confided the care of
the infant during these proceedings, win
assume the further duty of extending such
protection to the mother and child the or
der may be drawn so as to direct and en-
power him to do so, otherwise it will COM
mand the Sheriff to afford such protection.
Let an order be entered accordingly.