THE CASE OF THE GIRL CLARK.

Globe, Volume IX, Issue 1265, 8 April 1878, Page 3

THE CASE OF THE GIRL CLARK.

Argument of the rule obtained by George Clark calling upon the Rev. Joseph Larkin, a clergyman of the Roman Catholic Church, to show cause why a writ of habeas corpus should not issue compelling him to give up the custody of Alice Maud Mary Cl irk, a child of nine years of age, was heard before Mr Justice Johnston in the Dunedin Supreme Court on Friday. Mr Macassey (with him Mr Oallan) appeared on behalf of the Rev. Father Larkin to show cause, and Mr Smith to move the rule absolute. The report of the proceedings occupies many c ilumns nf the “ Otago Times.” The following was his Honor’s judgment: —“ I should have taken time to consider the case, as it is one no doubt of great importance and considerable interest, but after the prolonged arguments of an interesting character, I think the case has so clearly reduced itself into the narrow compass the learned counsel has alluded to in the end of his argument, that there is no necessity for me to take any ’ime to consider my judgment. I am not going to enter for a moment into the qu -stion of who is the proper person to be appointed guardian of the child by the Court, nor into the question of how far the will, or what is called the codicil, of the deceased woman is to bind the Court to give directions of guar dianship, or as to the mode in which the child Lto be brought up. ThU is an application to the common law jurisdiction of the Court., in the exercise of its pow rs of the common law and statutory jurisdiction, in respect of habeas corpus. And granted, as it has been granted on all sides, that a legal title to the custody of the child by George Clark has not been made out, the only quesf im to be determined is, as Mr Smith has said, whether the Court, is satisfied that by fraud or feme the child has been taken out of his custody. I admit that there are some circumstances which might raise suspicion, and there is perhaps little bl*me attached to the parties for ins ituting enquiries as to the circumstances of the whole transac'ion ; but it appears to me that it would be altogether straining the evidence that has been given in these affidavits if I were to come judicially to the conclusion that a case of stratagem for the purpose of defeating Clark’s actual possession of the child has been made out I need not tell you the facts ; they art- palpable and plain on the face of the affidavit. The evidence does not satisfy me, and ought not to satisfy me, or any other tribunal, I think, beyond any doubt that stratagem was intended. This being so, the rule for the habeas co-pas must he discharged, and ifc ig j,ot necessary that I should make out any order for custody. The rule was therefore discharged with costs.