actually confined or restrained, and that said confinement or restraint is not, to the best of his knowledge and belief, by virtue of any commitment or detainer for any criminal or supposed criminal matter. G. GRAND D'HAUTEVILLE.

Allowed-Returnable Monday, July 6th, at 9, A. M. to the chambers of Judge Conrad, 205 North Sixth street.

G. W. BARTON.

WRIT OF HABEAS CORPus.

"By Act of Assembly one thousand seven hundred and eighty-five." City and County of Philadelphia, ss.

The Commonwealth of Pennsylvania

To David Sears, Miriam C. Sears, and Ellen Sears Grand d'Hauteville,

GREETING:

We command you that the body of Frederic Sears Grand d'Hauteville, by you restrained, as it is said, of his liberty, and detained, by whatsoever name the said Frederic Sears Grand d'Hauteville may be detained, together with the day and cause of his being detained, you have before the honourable the Judges of our Court of General Sessions of the Peace, of the city and county of Philadelphia, at the chambers of the honourable Robert T. Conrad, one of the Judges of the said Court, No. 205 North Sixth street, in the county of Philadelphia, on Monday, the sixth day of July instant, at nine o'clock in the forenoon, then and there to do, submit to, and receive whatsoever our said Judges shall then and there consider in that behalf.

Witness the Honourable George W. Barton, at Philadel2delphia, President of our said Court of General Sessions of the Peace, of the city and county of Philadelphia, the third day of July, in the year of our Lord one thousand eight hundred

and forty.

THOS. S. CROMBERGER, pro. Clerk.

At the time fixed for the hearing, the respective counsel met at the place appointed; but finding that Judge Conrad had been accidentally detained away from home, it was agreed to defer the case until the following Friday, July 10th, and that it should be heard in the General Sessions Court-room, No. 2.

Subsequently there was a further continuance to

MONDAY, JULY 13TH.

General Sessions Court-room, No. 2.

At the hour appointed, all the Judges being present, the parties and their counsel appeared.

Barton, P. J. (After consultation) We think the circumstances of this case make it proper to postpone the hearing to another time.*

Half past three on Thursday, the 16th, was named as the hour for the next meeting-the place determined on to be afterwards made known to the counsel.

THURSDAY, JULY 16th.

Judge Barton's chambers, Schuylkill Eighth St. below Spruce St. Cadwalader. We now present the returns. The writ issued against three parties-David Sears, Miriam C. Sears, his wife, and Ellen Sears Grand d'Hauteville. The returns of the first two are little more than simple disclaimers.

RETURN OF DAVID SEARS.

To the honourable the Judges in the annexed writ named, David Sears therein named, in answer thereto doth certify, that he cannot have the body of Frederic Sears Grand d'Hauteville therein named before the said Judges, at the time and place therein commanded, because the child is not in his custody.

That he is the father of Ellen Sears Grand d’Hauteville in the said writ named, and is a native citizen of the state of Massachusetts, domiciled in Boston. That he has not and does not claim the custody of the said child, and has never had or claimed it. That the said Ellen and the said child are at present, and for some time past have been, living with her parents, or one of them, for comfort and protection, which the said Ellen entirely merits, and will continue to receive while her said parents shall be able to give it. That he has read the annexed answer of the said Ellen, and believes and generally knows it to be true. which is submitted.

DAVID SEARS.

All

The above named David Sears on his oath says, that the facts in the above return set forth are true.

Sworn and subscribed

13th July 1840, before

PETER HAY, Ald'n.

DAVID SEARS.

The return of Mrs. Sears, though with a slight variation, is to the same effect.

RETURN OF MIRIAM C. SEARS.

To the honourable the Judges in the annexed writ named, Miriam C. Sears therein named, in answer thereto doth certify, that she cannot

It was understood that the judges considered the case of such a peculiar and delicate nature, as to make a degree of privacy, not to be secured in the court-room, desirable.

have the body of Frederic Sears Grand d'Hauteville therein named before the said Judges, at the time and place therein commanded, because the said child is not in her custody.

That she is the wife of David Sears in the said writ named, and mother of Ellen Sears Grand d'Hauteville in the said writ named, and that she has not and does not claim the custody of the said child, and has never had or claimed it. That the said Ellen and her said child are at present, and for some time past have been living with her parents, or one of them, for comfort and protection, which the said Ellen entirely merits, and will continue to receive while her said parents shall be able to give it. That she has read the annexed answer of the said Ellen, and believes and knows it to be true in all points, and is, she believes, able to make proof of the same in case of need. All which is submitted. MIRIAM C. SEARS.

The within named Miriam C. Sears on her oath says, that the facts in the within return stated are true.

Sworn and subscribed the 13th July 1840, before

PETER HAY, Ald'n.

}

The return of Mrs. d'Hauteville is as follows:

MIRIAM C. SEARS.

RETURN OF ELLEN SEARS GRAND D'HAUTEVILLE.

To the Honourable the Judges in the annexed writ named, Ellen Sears Grand d'Hauteville therein named, in obedience thereto, doth certify, that she has the body of Frederic Sears Grand d'Hauteville therein named, before the said judges, at the time and place therein commanded.

That the said Frederic Sears is her son, and only child. That he was born on the 27th of September, 1838, at Boston, in the state of Massachusetts. That from his birth to the present day, he has never been separated from her. That she is his guardian by nature and for nurture, and that her care of him is indispensably necessary for his present and future welfare. That he is now in her custody for the proper and necessary purposes of such care and guardianship, and for no other purpose, and in no other manner; and is in no respect restrained of his liberty or detained illegally. That in her care and guardianship the moral and religious education of her said child is and will be suitably attended to, and his and her associations are and will be exclusively with persons of upright character, and moral and religious habits. That she is, in her own separate right, possessed of ample means to support and educate the said child in a manner befitting his station, and suitable to his expectations. That the present age of her said child does not admit of his separation from her, without the greatest danger to his health, which requires care, and even to his life, which has been more than once seriously threatened by attacks of illness. He needs, and for some years to come will need, a mother's nursing care, which no one else can supply.

That the respondent was married to Gonsalve Grand d'Hauteville, the father of the said child, at Montreux, in the Pays de Vaud, one of the Swiss cantons, in the month of August, in the year 1837; and that in the month of May, in the year 1838, with his knowledge and consent, she embarked from France for the United States, and with the further knowledge on his part, that the birth of the said child was expected to happen in the United States, in the course of a few months after her arrival. That the said Gonsalve remained and continued to reside in Europe. That for a considerable period before her said departure, a variety of circumstances had occurred to disappoint the expectations of sympathy and affection on the part of her husband, which he had previously excited, to obtain her consent to the said marriage; and she finally became inexpressibly wretched, by the conviction, that there was to be no mitigation of her sufferings, while she continued in his society and under his controul. That by force of these considerations she is now living separate and apart from him, under the protection of her parents, the said David Sears and Miriam C. Sears, in the annexed. writ named, and feels compelled to continue in this state of separation. Her said parents have, at her request, considered the causes of this separation, and given it their entire sanction and approval. Under these circumstances, the respondent is advised that she is not required by law, for the purposes of a hearing involving merely the present custody of her infant child, to enter upon the most painful task of detailing the particular causes which have led to this melancholy result of her marriage; but she begs to reserve the privilege of stating and proving them, in case of need, with such explanations as may be deemed necessary for her entire justification in the premises.

That the present proceeding takes place, as she is informed and believes, at the instance and on behalf of the said Gonsalve Grand d'Hauteville. That he is a native and domiciled inhabitant of the said Pays de Vaud, one of the Swiss cantons, and a foreign state; and that his object is to obtain, through the said proceeding, the possession and custody of the said child, in order to remove it to Switzerland, out of the jurisdiction of the United States, of which the said child is by birth a citizen, as are also the respondent and her parents, the said David Sears and Miriam C. Sears. That she firmly believes that the interests of the said child, in every respect in which an impartial person can regard them, will be prejudiced by such a removal at this time, or for some years to come; his personal expectations in this country, as well as the relation he bears to it by his birth, securing to him advantages hereafter of the highest value, if his earlier years are permitted to pass here. She is advised, however, that in consequence of the tender age of her child at this time, this last consideration may not require the special notice of the judges, as the laws and usages of this commonwealth would not, even if such future advantages were not in prospect, permit her child to be taken from her, until his age shall be much more advanced than it now is.

That with a view to an adjustment of this painful difference between herself and the father of the child on the subject of its custody, she addressed him, on the 26th of August, 1839, a letter to which he has never replied, and to which she begs leave to refer, as part of this her

return to the said writ. In it she prayed him not to "reject every amicable overture," and entreated him to listen to some compromise, which she thought could be made for them by two of his friends in New York, whom she named to him as in her belief just and honourable men. (These two, said Mr. Cadwalader, were his counsel and the consul of his own country.) In that letter she wrote thus: "I will watch over the early youth of your child, and return it to you with as good, and as moral, and as religious feelings as you could instil into its mind in Switzerland. I will send it to you when it no longer requires a mother's care, and can profit by an European education. My father, if permitted to become attached to it by its residence here, will provide for it the advantages of wealth, and probably more than you can possibly expect for it yourself. Listen, then, to his offers for its future benefit; you may reject them if you will, and thereby deprive your child of a fortune; but listen to them at least, and then take the responsibility of what your child may accuse you of hereafter. Remember you are accountable to our final Judge for the sufferings you occasion. Arbitrary and artificial right will not weigh in the balance against humanity and mercy before him! Think again, Gonsalve, of all I have endured through your means. Let me entreat you to reflect upon what I have written, and as a man, a christian, and a father, pause before you act, and consent to a meeting of our mutual friends."

To this letter, written in the spirit of peace and compromise, and from a heart crushed under the weight of its own wretchedness, the respondent repeats that she received no reply. He refused to listen to compromise, and he asks the aid of the law to take away from its mother, her child of twenty months old!

Believing and trusting that the humanity of the law is a sufficient defence against the claim, the respondent submits the matter to the court, in the confident belief that the case is not one to justify the separation of a mother from her only child. And the respondent further answers, that so much of her return to the said writ as is herein before contained, was prepared and intended for submission to the judges, as all that she deemed it material to state in regard to the circumstances of her said child and of her own unhappy case, but that, subsequently, a copy of the petition of Paul Daniel Gonsalve Grand d'Hauteville, upon which the writ in this case was granted, has come to her knowledge, and she now feels bound in duty to herself and to her parents, and in answer to the unjust and unfounded allegations contained in the same, though with the greatest reluctance, further to answer as follows. She proposes however to confine herself, principally, to those parts of the petition which relate to occurrences since her return to the United States, and particularly to those which have taken place since the birth of her child. She would also have availed herself of the occasion to ask the indulgence of the court, in permitting her to exculpate herself from the insinuation, that there existed no just cause on her part for having finally separated herself from the society of her husband. But she is advised by her counsel, that to enter into this inquiry would not be pertinent to the present subject of investigation, and would be an unnecessary intrusion of extrinsic subjects of a private and delicate character. The causes which induced her to adopt this measure of a separation are