Mahan v. Hendricks
| Decision Date | 08 October 1912 |
| Docket Number | 21,862 |
| Citation | 99 N.E. 418,181 Ind. 630 |
| Parties | Mahan v. Hendricks et al |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Rehearing Denied May 14, 1914.
From Boone Circuit Court; Willett H. Parr, Judge.
Action of habeas corpus by Hoover G. Mahan against James L Hendricks and others. From a judgment for defendants, the plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Frank E. Hutchinson, A. J. Shelby and Cassius C. Hadley, for appellant.
B. F Ratcliffe and S. R. Artman, for appellees.
Action of habeas corpus by appellant for possession of his infant daughter. The error assigned is in overruling the motion for a new trial, and the sole question presented is the sufficiency of the evidence.
Four questions are sought to be presented upon the admission of evidence, but the record shows that there was no objection made in two instances, and the other two were upon the grounds of remoteness, and not involving the custody of the child. The questions involved the conduct of the appellant as throwing some light upon his past history, and as his fitness to have the custody of the child, and the welfare of the child were the questions before the court, a wide latitude of examination is allowable and we cannot say that the discretion of the court was abused. Shoaf v. Livengood (1909), 172 Ind. 107, 88 N.E. 598; Bullock v. Robertson (1903), 160 Ind. 521, 65 N.E. 5; Berkshire v. Caley (1901), 157 Ind. 1, 10, 60 N.E. 696; Bryan v. Lyon (1885), 104 Ind. 227, 238, 3 N.E. 880, 54 Am. Rep. 309; Dubois v. Johnson (1884), 96 Ind. 6, 15; McKenzie v. State, ex rel. (1881), 80 Ind. 547; Garner v. Gordon (1872), 41 Ind. 92. Appellant was married to a daughter of appellees, June 14, 1908, and a female child was born of this union March 26, 1909; the mother died July 29, 1910.
The evidence discloses that appellant has no means and no home of his own, to which to take and rear the child; that he is dependent upon weekly wages running from $ 12 to $ 15 per week, and that the home of his parents, and that of a sister are open to the child. His parents are aged and infirm. His sister could and would furnish the child a good home. The home of the wife's parents is also a good home, and they are of an age and of means to properly nurture and educate the child. The grandfather is a physician, and there is some evidence that the child is not strong. At the time the proceeding was begun, appellant had gone upon a protracted absence to the state of California, and was then thirty-two years of age. There is evidence that appellant's wife in apprehension of her passing away, had, with the consent of appellant, committed the care and custody of the...
To continue reading
Request your trial