United States ex rel Schneider v. Sauvage

• Decision Date: 06 January 1899
• Citation: 91 F. 490
• Parties: UNITED STATES ex rel. SCHNEIDER v. SAUVAGE et ux.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Western District of Pennsylvania

91 F. 490

UNITED STATES ex rel. SCHNEIDER v. SAUVAGE et ux.

United States Circuit Court, W.D. Pennsylvania.

January 6, 1899

J. S. &amp E. G. Ferguson and Charles A. Locke, for relator.

Thos J. Ford, for respondents.

BUFFINGTON District Judge.

On November 18, 1898, Arnold Schneider presented his petition in the circuit court of the United States, setting forth that he was vice consul of his majesty the king of Belgium, and that under section 9 of the treaty concluded the 9th day of March 1890, between the president of the United States and the king of Belgium, he had a right to address himself to the judicial authorities of the United States for the purpose of protecting the rights and interests of citizens of Belgium that in pursuance of instructions from his government, and at the instance of Jacques de Koster and Louise Lemaire, his wife, who were subjects of Belgium, residing at Brussels, he prayed the issue of a writ of habeas corpus directing Agathon Sauvage and Maria Lemaire, his wife, residents of Belle Vernon, Fayette county, Pa., to produce the body of Valery Gustav de Koster, an infant child of said Jacques and Louise de Koster, who was alleged to be restrained of his liberty without due process of law. The writ having issued, the child was brought into court upon the day set for hearing, at which time the respondents filed an answer. Therein they admit having in their custody since December 18, 1890, the said child; that he is known as Valery Sauvage; that he was born in a maternity hospital in the city of Mons, Belgium, and was the natural son of Louise Lemaire; that said Louise Lemaire gave the boy to her sister, Maria, when he was 9 days old, and that by her he has been nurtured to the present time; that, about 2 1/2 years after the birth of the child, Louise married Jacques de Koster; that when the child was about 2 years old, and the respondent about to come to America, the mother of the child earnestly requested the respondents to take him with them; that he was brought, and since that time he has been carefully nurtured and cared for, and that respondents, having no children themselves, have acquired a strong affection for him, and he for them; and that he knows no other mother than Maria Sauvage, and prefers to remain with them. At the hearing of the case, testimony was taken by the court, from which it appears that the child was an illegitimate one, and was born in a maternity hospital, as stated in the answer; that at the time Mrs. Sauvage was living in another Belgian city, some distance from Mons; that she went to the hospital and took the child away a few days after he was born, at the express request of the mother, who desired to conceal her misfortune; that a few days thereafter the mother came to Mrs. Sauvage's home and saw the child, and then returned to service, leaving it in her sister's care. The testimony shows further that when Mrs. Sauvage was about to follow her husband to America the mother begged that she take the child with her. The proof is that it has been well taken care of by the Sauvages; that they have no child of their own, and are attached to Valery, and he to them; that he has been sent to both day and Sunday school; that he has been well clothed, and seemingly well brought up; that Sauvage is a workingman employed at good wages at a glass house, and has acquired property and a home of his own. The child was examined privately by the court, and seemed perfectly content to remain with his foster parents. He is in no way restrained of his liberty. The expense of maintaining the child in Belgium, the bringing of him to America, and the taking care of him since, has been borne solely by the Sauvage family. The certificate of the register of births from the town of Mons was given in evidence, showing that the child was registered as the son of Jacques de Koster and Louise Lemaire, his wife; but it is proper to note that the transcript does not state when such entry was made, and, in view of the proofs made in court, it would seem the child was born out of wedlock.

As no question is raised as to the jurisdiction of this court, we will for present purposes assume this court possesses it; but it will be noted that the jurisdiction here exercised is not that of a court of chancery, where the custody, nurture, or education of one of its wards is...