The Sunday Gazetteer
Sunday, October 22, 1893
pg 4
LOCAL CONDENSATIONS
Wednesday, October 27 - The habeas corpus trial of George Wheeler vs. R.S. Legate will be argued before Judge Bliss at Sherman tonight.

The Sunday Gazetteer
Sunday, October 29, 1893
pg. 4
LOCAL CONDENSATIONS
Monday, October 23 - Judge Bliss handed in his decision this morning relative to the legal possession of Hattie Legate. The petition of the plaintiffs, Mr. and Mrs. George Wheeler, was denied and the child will remain in the custody of Mr. and Mrs. Legate.

The Sunday Gazetteer
Sunday, June 10, 1894
pg. 5
PERSONALS
G.T. Harris, of the law firm of Decker & Harris, left Wednesday for Austin to appear before the supreme court in the case of Legate vs. Legate, wherein Mrs. Wheeler is seeking to recover her child, Hattie.

The Sunday Gazetteer
Sunday, November 4, 1894
pg. 4
ENDING OF A LONG LITIGATION
Something over a year ago suit was instituted in the district court at Sherman by Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler, through their attorney, for the possession of Hattie Legate, the infant and natural child of plaintiffs, which had been by lawful proceedings, alienated to and adopted by Mr. and Mrs. R.S. Legate.  The suit was by habeas corpus and both at Sherman and before the court of appeals the application for habeas corpus was denied.  The questions were certified to the supreme court at Austin and a final decision was handed down Tuesday.  Three questions were involved, the first being whether or not a district judge has the power under the constitution to issue habeas corpus in civil suits.  The answer is in the affirmative.  Second, is the case at law a civil or criminal action.  Answer, civil.  The third question deals with the case in quiestion directly and is a clear, sound and logical discussion and conclusion relative to the rights of the state in connection with of the parents in the care and the custody of children.  It is as follows:
Where the father and mother have by written agreement fully and finally relinquished their right to the custody of their daughter 3 months old, in favor of another, at a time when the mother is unable to give proper attention to the child on account of illness from which she was expected to die; and the child has been formally adopted by the person to whom such custody was given; and where on habeas corpus trial it is shown that the person having custody of the child is in every respect qualified to care for the child and provide for it; and it is also shown that the father and mother are also qualified in every way to care for and raise the child, should the child, after it has been cared for tenderly and lovingly for nearly two years by its foster parents be taken from their custody and given over to the custody of the maternal mother and father?  The law recognizes the parent as the natural guardian of and entitled to the custody of his minor child so long as he discharges the obligation imposed upon him by social and civil law, of protecting and maintaining his offspring.  It does not, however, recognize in him any property in interest in his child, but merely accords to him the benefits resulting from the child's services during minority.  The state as the protector and promoter of the peace and prosperity of organized society, is interested in the proper education and main maintenance of the child to the end that he may become a useful instead of a vicious citizen; and while as a general rule it recognizes the fact that the interest of the child and society is best promoted by leaving its education and maintenace during minority to the promptings of paternal affection, untrammeled by the sureilance of government, still it has the right in proper cases to deprive the parent of the custody of his child when demanded by the interests of the child and society.  The one most vitally interested in the child itself.  When a parent by writing, or otherwise, has voluntarily transferred and delivered his minor child into the custody and control of another and then seeks to recover possession of the child by writ of habeas corpus, such parent is invoking the exercise of the equitable discretion of the court to disrupt private domestic relations which he has voluntarily brought about and the court will not grant the relief unless upon a hearing of all the facts the best interest of the child will be promoted thereby.  The law does not prohibit such a transfer, but on the contrary allows the child to reap the advantage when it is to its interest to do so.  The attempted transfer is not a contract and cannot be enforced as such because neither the child nor its custody was a subject matter of contract.  By it new domestic relations were formed for the child and the possession by the foster parent is prima facie lawful.  Two homes are offered the child.  As a matter of law it is entitled to the benefit of that home and environments which will probably best promote its interest.  Whose custody will be most beneficial is a question of fact of which this court has no jurisdiction.
Opinion by Denman, J.

The Sunday Gazetteer
Sunday, December 23, 1894
pg. 4
LOCAL CONDENSATIONS
Friday, December 21 - In the habeas corpus trial in the district court at Sherman this morning Judge Bliss restored the custody of Hattie Legate-Wheeler to Mr. and Mrs. Legate.

The Sunday Gazetteer
Sunday, January13, 1895
pg. 4
SOCIETY
Mr. and Mrs. Joe Brutsche, Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler and Mr. and Mrs. R.S. Legate spent the most of Friday in Sherman attending district court.  Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler had complained that Mr. and Mrs. Legate had violated the mandates of the supreme court in the matter of allowing them, Mr. and Mrs. Wheeler, the society of their alienated child, Hattie, at the times stipulated by the court.  Mr. and Mrs. Legate had never received official notice from the court, and, until such notice had been received it could not be violated.  Such was the holding of District Judge Bliss.