OCR Text |
Show CONFLICT OF COURTS IS INVOLVED There is a seeming clash of Jurls-diciioa Jurls-diciioa botweenjhe district court and liie Juvenile court and the latter court has been cited to appear and show cause why It 6hould not be deemed In contempt for undertaking to interfere with a former decision of the district court. The question is involved in tho case of Emily Belnap against Oliver Bel-nap. Bel-nap. While Judge Rolapp was on the bench, Mrs. Belnap was granted a Jcrce of divorce, the decree providing provid-ing that she should have the exclusive custody, nurture and education of Dora, the Infant child of th, parties, toe defendant, Oliver Belnap being enjoined from meddling with or interfering inter-fering with the child until tho further order of the court. The defendant filed a petition in the juvenile court asking that he bo given tho custody of the child, notwithstanding notwithstand-ing tho decree of the district court. The Judge ol the Juvenile court, Vol-v.ey Vol-v.ey C. Ounuell, threatens to proceed to hear and determine the questions Involved In-volved in the petition aud threatens tiiat he will, if he deems It proper, modify the decree of the district court, j he claiming the right so to do respect-1 lng tho custody of the child. Uecau&o of the attitude of Judge Gunnell In the premises, the plaintiff applied to the district court to'havo the juvenile judge and the defendant defend-ant Belnap brought into court and r.how cause why they should not be t-djudged guilty of contempt and be junlshed accordingly lor Interfering, or attempting to lnteifere. with the decree of the district court. The petition pe-tition also requests that Belnap be required to show cause why he should not pay $20 a month for the support of the child. The defendants' filed demurrers tJ the peiltion, claiming that the district dis-trict court has no Jurisdiction of the subject matter, that thero is a mis-Jcined mis-Jcined and that the petition does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action. Judge Howell today rendered a decision on tho demurrers In part, as follows: "In view uf the conclusions which the court has arrived at with respect to the matters already discussed, it Is unnecessary to consider the questions ques-tions raised by the plaintiff as to the constitutionality of the statute creating creat-ing tho present Juvenile court. "It seems to the court, then, that the demurrera of both defendants should be overruled, for while it may be doubtful whether the defendant Gunnell Is at this time guilty of con-, tempt In threatening to proceed to hear the cause before him, this court ton enjoin i.Im from rendering the e'ecree of this court Ineffective, and can prevent him from disturbing the plaintiff in her custody of this child. '"Let the defendants huve twenty doys in which to answer." |