CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

Dominion, Volume 4, Issue 1141, 31 May 1911, Page 8

CUSTODY OF CHILDREN

IN MEWHINNEY CASE. EXPLANATION BY THK GHIEi , JUSTICE. At the Supreme Court yesterday, before his Honour the Chief Justice, nn application was made on behalf of Netlio Lena Mowhinney for the custody of the children of her dissolved marriage with Oliver Mewhinney. Tho application was the sequel to legal proceedings between the parties which have occupied the attention of the Courts previously. An .order as to the custody of .the- children was mndn some months' ago. Tor non-compliance with that order, in m far as it required him to give the custody of the children to petitioner for n certain period, Mewhinney was brought before Mr. Justice Edwards on a writ of attachment, and committed to prison for a fortnight. Mr. A. Gray appeared in support of tho petition, and Mr. T. M. Wilford opposed it. Before hearing the application, his Honour said: There is one thing I want to state. I understand that Mewhinney said to the Court on a previous occasion —I do not know if he was correctly reported—that be did not obey the order because of something that , Mrs.- Atkinson had told him that I had said. Was that so? ' ".■■••

Mr. Gray: I do not know. Mr. Mewhinney: I know all about it. Mr. Wilford was" not there.

His Honour: All I can say is that Mrs. Atkinson, as president of the Women and Children's Protection Society, called on me in refereuco to the custody of thn children, as this institution is continually dealing with such cases. I told her that the order must be obeyed, and that nothing could bo done until it came before the Court, and I declined to have anything to do with it tilL it was brought before the Court. She then wrote me a letter, to which I mode no reply. She thpn wired me from Nelson, and I replied to her again that the order must bs obeyed, and that some, of the. statements in the letter had been beforo the Court before. I understood that Mr. Mewhinney made the Judge (Mr.- Justice Edwards) believe that L had said something to Mrs; Atkinson to modify or alter tho order that I had laid down. That is absolutely incorrect.

Mr. W'ilford: Mr. Mewhinney says that is not so.

1 His Honour: I have Mrs. Atkinson's letter here, and in it she assumes that I said tho order was to bo obeyed, because she refers to the fact that I had asked her-to see if the. Nuns .could look after the children whilst they were in Mrs. Mcwhinney's care during the. holidays. So far as Mrs. Atkinson is concerned, I do not think she came to represent either of the parties, but as president of the society who look after children. I told her that the order must be obeyed, and her own letter admits that, because she said that she had seen the Nuns about visiting the children when they were in Mrs. Mewhinney's possession. My telegram was explicit that nothing could be done without the order of. the Court.

Mr. Gray: There is no doubt that Mrs, Atkinson, under a mistaken sense of duty, interfered improperly.

At the suggestion of Mr. Gray, his Honour directed that the evidence be not published.

Affidavits relating to plaintiff's actions were read. F.vidence in denial and explanation was given by, plaintiff and two other witnesses. Counsel then addressed tho Court.

His Honour after commenting adversely on. defendant's refusal to obey an order of the Court, said he thought it would be much better, seeing that in the past his'statements had been •■ misunderstood or had been misrepresented • by Mewhinney, that he should ?iye a , 'written judgment. He would deliver judgment .on Thursday morning.'