Page 401, lines 4 500, line 3. ERRATA-VOL. 26. (To be corrected in the plates of future editions.) and 5. Strike out "is," and insert "are." Strike out "they," and insert "the legislature." After" Calvin," insert "Lexicon Juridicum," and strike those words out of line 29. 501, line 28. 502, line 4. Strike out "4 Salk." and insert "2 Salk." 603. The five cases commencing on this page, and ending on page 615, are erroneously stated to be special term decisions. They were decided at a general term, held by DAVIES, SUTHERLAND and INGRAHAM, Justices. VOL. 27. Page 267. Instead of " 13 Bro. C. C." read "3 Bro. C. C." CASES IN Law and Equity IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK. THE PEOPLE, ex rel. Olmstead, vs. OLMSTEAD and RANDELL. By the common law, a father has the paramount right to the custody and control of his minor children, and to superintend their nurture and education. The same rule exists in this state. But this superior legal right of the father is subject to the control of a court of equity, in two cases: 1. When the father has abused or forfeited the right by cruelty or misconduct towards the child, or his character is such, or he has been guilty of such conduct, that the welfare, either physical or moral, of the child requires that such child shall be removed from the father.: 2. When the father and mother are living separate from each other, under such circumstances as would warrant the court in granting a divorce a mensa et thoro, and the welfare of the child requires that it should reside with the mother. Where a separation between the parents has taken place, without any fault on the part of the husband, upon whose character there is no imputation; and there is no objection made to his fitness for the proper discharge of his parental duties; and the evidence does not show any ground on which a court of equity could decree a separation of his wife from him, for any cruelty, unkind treatment or neglect, the custody of the child will be given to him. The People v. Olmstead. When the mother has been at fault in the occurrences preceding the separation, she should not be rewarded for her faults by the interposition of the court. If she breaks up the household, and departs from her husband's house, wrongfully, whether it be done of her own purpose, or from weakly yielding to the evil influences of others, she is not to be allowed to take with her the children of the union. HIS was a proceeding by habeas corpus, instituted by a THIS father, against his wife and mother-in-law, to obtain the possession of his infant child, and to have the care and custody of said child committed to him. The petition of the relator stated that on the 20th of February, 1855, the petitioner legally married Maria N., the daughter of the defendant, now Mrs. Randell, widow; that he was thirty years of age, and his said wife about twenty-four years of age, and that she had no brother or sister living; that said Mrs. Randell had no child living except the petitioner's wife; that said Mrs. Randell, and the petitioner's said wife, and the petitioner, all resided in the city of New York at the time of such marriage, and that the marriage ceremony was performed there; that the petitioner and his said wife, Maria N., had one child only, an infant son, who was born on the 22d day of November, 1855, in said city; that said Mrs. Randell had persuaded the petitioner's said wife to leave him and remain absent from him, without any just cause therefor on his part, and in opposition to his wishes, most of the time since his marriage; that the petitioner's said wife came to him seven days before the birth of her said child, from Bridgeport, Connecticut, and resided with him in said city of New York at the time said child was born, but that she left him again and took away the child within two months thereafter, without his consent, and had continued to remain away from the petitioner with said child ever since, without his consent; that when his wife left him after the birth of his said child, he called to see his child several times, but was always obliged to see it in the apartments of Mrs. Randell |