IN WHOSE CUSTODY? LAWSUIT BETWEEN A CATHOLIC CANON AND A SALVATION LASS.

Te Aroha News, Volume VI, Issue 299, 15 September 1888, Page 5

IN WHOSE CUSTODY? LAWSUIT BETWEEN A CATHOLIC CANON AND A SALVATION LASS.

London. July 20. lx the bitter conllicLs which are constantly raging between Protestants and Roman Catholics for the custody of children, you will generally tind that the latter win the day, and the reason of tins is that they lake good care to have the law on their rule. An instance uf this occuriccl in Manchester some months ag-o. and again in Nottingham quite recently ; in tact, the- latter chsc only ended on Tuesday last, when " Douglass v. finder" was tried before Lord Coleridge and u special |ury. The child sought on tln.s occasion was only an organ-grinder s in taut, but if it had been the heir of the Howards and the prospective possessor of wealth and intluence incalculable, the struggle could not ba\e been waged nioie fieicely. The "Daily News' thus mm ntaiises the circumstanced: — The p'aintilf, the Ke\. Canon Doug ass, ot Nottingham. is a I lonian (Catholic pne&t. The principal defendant, Rose Pindei , is a warm sympathiser with the Salvation Arm j , and is the eldest sistci of a little girl of 13, named Plea-ance Briuuiloj, « horn the Canon has sucees-mlly claimed the 1 10 tit to bring up in the llom.'in latnoli? taitn. I'leasanec IJrinniloy is one ot the numerous family ot t he late Anthony Brmniloy, "musician," of Nottingham. Koi ''uuisican " lead " Italian oigan gunder, ' and we -hall have Anthony's c' act po ition in the social ->eale. Anthony died m December of Itiot \«ar. and shortly betoie his deauti ne came to Canon Douglass in great tnbulatiun ot --piiit about the future oi his youthful iamih. lie had married an Englishwoman, whom he had survived, and their children, who had all been bapti/ed as Catholics, were dritting into what he legaided as heiesy. Some ot them A\ent to Protestant schools and 1< Protestant places of woiship, and he was greatly concerned as to their eternal welfare. He wished the Canon to undertake the spiritual charge of them. The Canon — w ho, before entering the priesthood, had practised as a solicitor — told him there was- but one waj . He had better execute a will, expressing his wishes, and appointing the (. anon testamentary guardian ol such ot the children as should be minors at the time of their father's decease. A w ill to this eilect was accordingly draw n up by the Canon, and to it pool Anthony Brinniloy, who could neither read noi write, affixed hit- mark The will wa-5 lead o\er to him, slowh and word by word, and he frequently exclaimed, " That's a ; 'That's just ' it," ' by way of expressing his? approval ot its contents. It was witnessed by a Catholic priest and bj a verger of the Catholic church at which the Canon officiates, described in the instrument as a ' brass tinisher." In aecoidance with his powers under the will, the Canon began to assume the custody of the joungei children, after then fathers death, and he sent the child Pleasanee to a Koman Catholic institution. This pioceeding was highly offensive to the eldest sister, who at about this time had attained her majority and married an officer ot the .Salvation Anm, She detei mined to lecovei Pleasance from the Roman Catholics, and she succeeded in obtaining' possession ot her by what the reverend plain till described as a trick. This was the beginning of a series of tactical manu'uvres foi the possession of the unlucky infant which ultimately became the scandal of the toun. Another sister sympathised with the Catholic side in the quau el. and, with her aid, the pri-ce was reeoveied. by a second manaaivre, or lather by the simple expedient of carrying the little girl off as she stooi in the street among her school companions. The child screamed, and the scieam echoed through all Protestant Nottingham. The Canon relied on hit right undei the will, and ultimately a series of minor local proceedings de\ eloped into the gieat case in the High Court of Justice in the capital. The issue for ti lal was the vahdit\ ot the will. Both sides had the best legal assistance, and the Corporation of Nottingham having become a part} to the ease. Mi Pintier was able to secuie the «ci vices of Sir Henry James. The Finders denied that the organ-giinder knew or appioved the contents of the instrument to which he had set his mark. They maintained that he was not of sound mind, memory, or understanding at the peiiod of the uansaction, and that he had been induced to sign by fraud and undue influence on the Canon's pai t. These were brave words, but before the ease was concluded raostof them were withdrawn, and especially those reflecting on the character ot the Canon. With their ■withdrawal, of course, the case against the will \irtually broke down, for it had little to rest upon but the alleged inability of the organ-grinder to understand a legal document, the terms of which it was shown he had expressly approved. Sir Henry James fought a losing fight with considerable skill. Although Brinniloy was a pauper, or at any rate was so poor that he had to hire the organ he ground for his bread, it was argued that Canon Douglass was a person " benefiting" under hia will. The benefit was supposed to consist in the promotion of a religious object which the Canon would piobably deem tar greater than any amount of money. This, howevei, was too subtle for the jury, and they took no more than ten minutes to return their verdict for the plaintiff on all the i=sues left to their consideration. The most plausible contention of thedefendants was to the effect that Brinniloy had sought a material, and not a moral oi religious guardianship for his infant brood. He was very poor, and he wanted to secure a home for his family , rather than a faith. This was supported by some evidence of a highly curious kind as exemplifying the vagueness of many poor people in their notions of religious observance, if not oi religious belief. The mother of the children was brought up as a Wpsleyan Methodist, but she occasionally attended a Catholic chapel, and she had sent for a priest on her deathbed. By Mrs Finder's own admission, all her brothers and sisters were baptised as Roman Catholics Yet some of them went to the Wesleyan Sunday-school. The father knew that they went there, and himself occasionally dropped in at the parish church, while the mother and elder sisters took their choice of the Wesleyan chapel or the barracks of the Salvation Army. The sißter who had helped to recover the child for the Canon sometimes attended the Koman Catholic service, and sometimes the Wesleyan. Mrs Finder, while showing great solicitude for the ' Protestant religion,' admitted that she had never heard of the Thirty-nine Articles. Another witness, when asked whether he was a Roman Catholic or a Protestant, said he did not belong to either Church, but he was a Protestant 'as far as that goes.' All this would seem to show that, in matters ot religion, many humble souls are a good more solicitous about things than about names, and that they have worked out for themj telves a very simple theory ot toleration. I They are of opinion that it is all very "nice," both at church and chapel, and they regard variety of spiritual diet as one of the conditions of spiritual health-