CUSTODY OF A CHILD.

Temuka Leader, Issue 2390, 2 August 1892, Page 4

CUSTODY OF A CHILD.

In the Supreme Court, Dunedin, on Thursday, a motion was heard for a writ of attachment against an aged couple named Manning for disobedience of a writ of habeas corpus which was issued early in March last. At that time, on the application of Charles James Sutton, a writ of habeas corpus was issued against Mary Sutton, John Manning, and Helen Manning, to produce to the court John Sutton, an infant, and hand over' the possession of it to its father, the applicant,* Charles James Sutton. The defendant Mary Sutton was the mother of the infant, and the defendants John Manning and Helen Manning were the parents of the defendant Maiy Sutton. During the course of the proceedings on the argument of the rule nisi it transpired that, while the rule was made returnable on the sth of February, the child vanished two days before that date from the custody of the Manning's, with whom it had been living, being taken by its mother to Melbourne. His Honor directed that a separate writ should issue to each of the defendants, and that all the writs should bo returnable five weeks after service. When the matter again came before the court on Thursday, it was stated on behalf of the Mannings that they had communicated with Mrs Sutton, but she had refused to come back or to accept money, which they offered to send her, to enable her to return ; and it was submitted that, the defendants being 78 and 58 years of age respectively, it would be inhuman to ask them to go to Melbourne themselves to

procure the child. Mr Justice Williams, while orderiug that the writ of attachment should go, said he had no wish, looking at the advanced age of Mr and Mrs Manning, that they should bo sent to gaol, but he felt that as they had wronged Mr Sutton, it lay upon them to use their utmost efforts to right him, and if they did not take every reasonable step (short of going to Melbourne itself) to .get the child back they should suffer for the wrong they had committed. His Honor directed that the writ should lie in the office for a month, and that it should be discharged if within that time the Mannings satisfied him that they had made every reasonable effort to procure the child.