| Notes |
- Sydney Morning Herald - Saturday, 31 December, 1887.
LAW REPORT
SUPREME COURT - FRIDAY, DECEMBER 30.
In Chambers - (Before Mr. Justice Owen)
IN RE SAMUEL BODDY AND ANOTHER.
Mr. Dawson, instructed by Mr. J.M. Thompson (for the applicants, Samuel Boddy, of Newcastle, and Henrietta Boddy, his wife, and moved for an order calling upon Charles McShine, a coloured man, late of Newcastle, but now of Cook's River, to deliver up to them a female child which was in his custody. Mr. Slattery appeared on behalf of the respondent, to show cause. It appeared from the affidavits that the child in question is the illegitimate offspring of McShine's late wife, and was born some years before the mother married. Mrs McShine died recently, and Henrietta Boddy, who is a sister of the deceased, desired to secure custody of the child, mainly on the grounds that she was related to her by blood and that she and her husband were in a better position to support and educate the child than the respondent. The child appeared in court under a writ of habeas corpus.
HIS HONOR said that the ground of his decision in the case was in all cases of illegimate children, the Court considered the mother and the mother's relations as the only persons entitled to have charge of them, as was settled in the case of the Queen v Nash, 10 Q.B. division, page 454. In that case the Court said that not only the mother, but the mother's relatives were to be taken into consideration when dealing with the question of the custody of the child. Here unfortunately, the mother of the child was dead, and the person who now had charge of her was no legal or moral relation at all. He married the mother after the illegitimate child was born, and therefore it appeared to him that he had not as good a claim to the custody of the child as the relations of the mother had. There was, moreover in the affidavits a very strong body of evidence that the mother during her lifetime, and more particularly when her end drew near, was anxious that her sister should have the custody of the child. Therefore, outside the merely legal right, there existed a moral right, to carry out the wishes of the mother by giving up the child to her sister. Both upon the law and the facts, the custody of the child should be given to the applicants, and he made the order accordingly, without costs.
The child was then removed by the applicants.
|