AN APPEAL CASE

Otago Witness, Issue 3566, 18 July 1922, Page 30

AN APPEAL CASE

CUSTODY OF CHILD. WELLINGTON, July 12. The Salaman case came before the Appeal Court to-dav in the form of an appeal from a judgment by Mr Justice Hosking issuing a writ of habeas corpus directing Marjorie Salaman to bring her child before the court. The real contest between the parties is as to whether it would be for the child's welfare that it should be removed from the mother's custody. Mr Jellicoe appeared for appellant, and Mr Myers and Mr Leicester for respondent, the father. Mr Myers raised a preliminary objection that the appeal was not in time, but the court gave leave to go on with the appeal. Mr Jellico contended that the writ of habeas corpus had been issued owing to misrepresentation and the suppression of facts, that the mother’s custody of the child was legal, and that the oourt had no jurisdiction to interfere with it by writ of habeas corpus. The custody of the child was given to her by the deed of separation between the parties, and that deed had not been voided by divorce, or by anything else. He dealt at length with the evidence. July 13. The Court of Appeal concluded the hearing of argument :n the matter of Ayesha Salaman, an infant. Mr Jellicoe, continuing, contended that it was not open to the court-, in an order absolute for a writ of habeas corpus, to decide questions of breaches of covenants in deeds of separation between husband and wife. This, he said, was what the Supreme Court liad done in the present case. Mr M. Myers, for the respondent, the father of the child, said that the most that could be affected by the appeal was the question of costs, since he contended that a reversal judgment would not result in the. mother recovering custody of the child. The deed of separation between the parties, by which the wife had the knvfnl custody; of the child had, he said, come to an end on the unchastity of the wife, and the husband, therefore, had the legal right to the custody of the child. The Chief Justice (Sir Robert Stout) suggested that both parties should agree to send the child to some orphanage or institution, but Mr Myers said that he had no authority to agree to such a suggestion. The issue of the writ of habeas corpus and order made as to the custody of the child wore, Mr Myers said, perfectly valid. After Mr Jellicoe had replied, the court reserved, its decision.