McCoy v. Brookins

• Decision Date: 13 October 1920
• Docket Number: 2167.
• Parties: MCCOY v. BROOKINS ET AL.
• Court: Georgia Supreme Court

104 S.E. 572

150 Ga. 636

MCCOY v. BROOKINS ET AL.

No. 2167.

Supreme Court of Georgia

October 13, 1920

Error from Superior Court, Washington County; R. N. Hardeman, Judge.

Habeas corpus proceeding by T. W. McCoy against William Brookins to secure custody of Marvin Edwin McCoy, his son, in which Mrs. William Brookins intervened. From a judgment awarding custody to Mr. and Mrs. Brookins, petitioner brings error. Affirmed.

The answer to the writ of habeas corpus was the joint answer of Mr. and Mrs. Brookins, and error is assigned because the latter was not named as a party to the petition, that no petition for intervention was filed, and that no order was taken making her a party to the cause.

On the trial a witness for defendant read a letter purporting to have been received by her from the plaintiff, Tom McCoy, reading in part, "Tom told her that the baby was not his, and that he did not want it upon that account," and plaintiff objected to it because there was no evidence to show that the letter was written by Tom McCoy and there was no evidence of handwriting.--Statement by editor.

T. J. Swint and Jordan & Harris, all of Sandersville, for plaintiff in error.

Rawlings & Wood, of Sandersville, for defendants in error.

GEORGE, J.

1. A petition for habeas corpus was brought by a father for the custody of his infant child, a son about three years old. The child's maternal grandfather was named in the petition as respondent. On the trial the maternal grandmother was also allowed to defend. The answers alleged that the plaintiff deserted the child's mother and abandoned the child when he was only a few months old, that subsequently the mother (who was still in life) surrendered the custody and control of the child to respondents, and that the plaintiff was not a proper person to have the custody of the child. Upon the issues the evidence was conflicting, and the ordinary of the county, before whom the case was tried, did not abuse his discretion in awarding the custody of the child to respondents. It follows that the judge of the superior court, on certiorari, did not err in refusing to disturb the judgment of the ordinary.

2. The assignments of error relating to matters of procedure and the admissibility of certain evidence do not show cause for reversal.

Judgment affirmed.

All the Justices concur.