Ex parte Mould

• Decision Date: 08 June 1910
• Parties: Ex parte MOULD.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

162 Mich. 1

126 N.W. 1049

Ex parte MOULD.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

June 8, 1910.

Petition by Florence J. Chappelle for writ of habeas corpus against Ada Freeman, a probation officer, to determine the right to custody of Lois Mould, a minor. Order entered for her delivery to petitioner.

Exercising original jurisdiction, this court issued the writ of habeas corpus to bring before the court Lois Mould, a female child 12 years of age, who, it was represented, was unlawfully restrained of her liberty by the probation officer of Wayne county. This officer produced the child, as she was commanded to do, and returned that she had her in custody by virtue of an order of the probate court of Wayne county, and also by virtue of an order, finding, and decree of the circuit court for Wayne county. The order of the probate court, juvenile division, made May 11, 1910, is as follows: ‘A petition having been heretofore filed in this court wherein it is alleged that Lois Mould, alias Mole, is a juvenile delinquent person within the meaning of the statutes of the state of Michigan, and on the 14th day of April all parties interested being then represented in open court or having notice, and it then appearing to the court necessary and for the best interests and welfare of said child and the public the court placed said child in the care and custody of Ada Freeman, a duly appointed probation officer, and ordered said child detained for a period of 30 days, and on the 23d day of April a new complaint having been filed in such matter and after due notice to all persons interested come on for hearing before this court, on the 4th day of May instant, at 8:30 a. m., and Louis W. McClear, an attorney appearing for the alleged guardian of said child, and requesting an adjournment to this date, and upon hearing this day, said Louis W. McClear again appearing and asking that said matter be further continued, it is ordered that said matter be and the same is hereby continued to the 18th day of May inst. at 9 o'clock in the forenoon, and, it still appearing to the court that the interests of said child and public interests require that said child be detained in the custody of some suitable and proper person, it is further ordered that said Lois Mould, alias Mole, be, and she is hereby, committed to the care and custody of Ada Freeman, a duly appointed probation officer of this court, with full power and authority over the person of said Lois Mould, alias Mole, until the further order of this court, but not to exceed a period of 30 days from the date hereof, unless otherwise ordered.’ The complaint of April 23d referred to in the order sets out upon information and belief that Lois Mould is a resident of Livingston county, Mich., in which county her guardian also resides; that she is a delinquent child, and has violated the laws of the state, in that she committed the crime of perjury in the recorder's court of Detroit in giving her testimony in a cause depending in that court, she being sworn as a witness upon the trial of said cause. The details are set out at length. There is no order or decree of the circuit court for the county of Wayne set out in said return. There is an opinion and finding of Judge Donovan, one of the judges of that court, in habeas corpus proceedings in the Matter of Lois Mould, which is here set out: ‘I find on listening to argument of counsel for petitioner and respondents, and upon reading record of testimony taken in recorder's court and before the police department prior to trial, showing facts and circumstances surrounding crime committed against child in this case, Lois Mould, and showing to my satisfaction that crime was committed, and that child did make frank and free statement to police department and to others, and after reading record in application to Supreme Court of this state that child be released on bond, I am satisfied that crime was committed against child, and that child did make a frank statement showing guilt of her father, and that within 11 days after committing of offense Florence J. Chappelle had herself appointed guardian in Livingston county, this state, with connivance of father of child, who was on trial in recorder's court for offense against child and influencing child to deny truth and perjure herself on trial of father, and that such child did perjure herself on the trial of her father and was properly committed by Hon. William F. Connolly, one of the judges of the recorder's court for the city of Detroit, for committing perjury during the trial of the People of the State of Michigan v. Charles Mould, father of said child, and then properly transferred to juvenile division of probate court, Wayne county. I further find that, while said child was found so under arrest she was properly taken before probate court in accordance with statute, and there properly complained against. The record in case discloses that child was under subpoena and bond to answer, appear, and testify in recorder's court, and came to recorder's in response to subpoena and bond, and, while being there adjudged by such court competent to testify, perjured herself. I find that juvenile division of probate court has jurisdiction over children of any county who commit felonies within this county, and of child in this case. In consideration of facts disclosed to me by arguments of counsel and records before me, I find that best interests and welfare of child demand that she be not given to petitioner in this case, and that she be turned over by this court on this writ to Ada Freeman of this city, county, and state, and further, that she be left within jurisdiction of juvenile court of this county, to be disposed of, and that, if such jurisdiction fail, I remand child to custody of said Ada Freeman, she being a competent and trustworthy custodian for child and willing to accept responsibility thereof. In any event, I find, and, in so finding, hereby dismiss writ applied for, that petitioner for writ is only guardian of property of Lois Mould, and not guardian of her person; therefore, in accordance with decision found in the fourteenth Michigan, and consistently followed in this state, and with holding of our Supreme Court, Re Heather Children, 50 Mich., I find that petitioner has no such right or interest such as entitled her to apply to this court for a writ of habeas corpus, and for that reason writ is dismissed.’

It is asserted by the said probation officer in her return that this finding and determination is not reviewable except upon certiorari, and in an original proceeding in this court is res adjudicata the right of said officer to the custody of the child. It is further stated in said return in substance and effect that the father of Lois Mould, a man upwards of 40 years of age, was arrested in Detroit, charged with having committed a rape upon her in that city; that she informed certain police officers that her father did commit this crime; that she was for a time detained as a witness, but was later enlarged, and went, with her aunt (who sued out the writ in this proceeding), to Fowlerville, in Livingston county, and remained with her until she appeared in the recorder's court in Detroit to give her testimony upon the trial of her father. Inferentially, at least, it is charged that the said aunt secured possession of her person for the purpose of influencing her with respect to the testimony she should give upon the trial of her father and did influence her. The father was convicted of an assault and committed to the Detroit House of...