MEWHINNEY v. MEWHINNEY.

Evening Post, Volume LXXXII, Issue 28, 2 August 1911, Page 4

MEWHINNEY v. MEWHINNEY.

BEFORE COURT OF APPEAL. CUSTODY OF CHILDREN WANTED. An6ther stage of the Mewhinrtey case came before a legal tribunal late yesterday afternoon, when Oliver Mewninhey appealed to the Court of Appeal against the whole of the order made by the Chief Justice (Sit Robert Stout) on Ist June, ( giving respondent (Nettie Lena Mewhinney) the custody of the two in« ,fa,nt children of the marriage—namely, Nettie Elizabeth and Victor Joseph Mewhinney. The ground of the appeal was that the order is erroneous in Jaw and in fact. , The following k an abbreviated report of hie Honour's order :. " When this ca-s*. was last before me 1 made an order Allowing the husband to have the ciistody of the children, ac from the commencement of their school holidays until the end of the year, ahd that the wife was to h»ve the custody of the children in January to the beginning of the school term. This 01-d«f was flouted by the husband, and not given effect to. I made the order in that form so that I might have ah opportunity of seeing how the petitioner managed the children, because it had been .said that she was a bad manager of' children, and not fit to look after them. The court has, however, been prevented by the conduct of the husband from having an oppor tunity of seeing how tho children can bo managed by the mother. At tha hearing ot this motion, the husband filed certain affidavits making charges against tho petitioner. Ev«n it' tho statements in tne affidavits were true, they were not, in my opinion, sufficient to prove bad conduct on the part of the peti* tioner, but were no doubt sufficient to create a fiuepicion of bad conduct. The petitioner and oth^r witnesses .have been examined to rebut the inference that might have been drawn from these affi' davite, and I am satisfied that there is not sufficient evidence to charge mis« I conduct on the part of the petitioner. | The question, therefore, remains whether j a. successful petitioner is to be 'denied i the control of her children by an "unsuccessful respondent. There is happily in this case no question of religion. Both belong to one Church— the Roman Catholic. I intend to make an order in this case that the children be in the custody of the mother, provided that the boy be educated at the Catholic Boys' School at Seatoun, where he was educated before, if the echool takes day scholars, bui, if the school does not take day scholars, then the boy can be at the school as a boarder, but must bo on Saturday afternoons ami Sundays with hie mother. I understand that there is a Catholic School at Seatoun to which the girl can be sent. She will have to attend that school. I have already expressed my opinion of his conduct, in reference to tho previous ordev, and I shall say nothing more, says that a person who disobeys an order of the Supreme Court is not a suitable person to bring up children. " The Bench waa c*"upied by Justices Denniston, Chapman, and Sim. Appellant appeared in person (owing to the absence- of hie counsel, Mr. T. M^ Wilford), and Mr. A. Gray appeared for rtapondent. In addressing the court, appellant argned that Ine Chief Ju*tic» had wrongly concluded from the evidence that respondent had not been guilty of misconduct. After argument had continued for half an hour, the court adjourned until next day. :