
    SUPREME COURT.
    The People ex rel. Eliza A. G. Ward agt. Samuel Ward.
    
      Habeas, corpus— where and to whom application f<yr the writ, in behalf of wife living in a state of separation from her husband, respecting the custody of a minor child must be made.
    
    The supreme court at chambers or a county judge has not jurisdiction to grant a writ of habeas copus upon the application of a wife, living in a state of separation from her husband, respecting the custody of a minor child.
    The writ is founded upon 3 Revised Statutes {BanM 6th ed., page 163), and the application must he made to the supreme court, and it must be not only granted by, hut returnable before the supreme court.
    
    
      Onondaga, Special Term, January, 1879.
    Motion for writ of habeas corpus.
    
    The petition of Eliza A. G. Ward showed that she was the wife of Samuel Ward. She and her husband were living in a state of separation without being divorced; there was one minor child of such marriage aged about seven months; that her husband had treated her cruelly and ejected her from the house, refusing to allow her to return or to give her the custody of the child, &c., and, therefore, prayed that the writ might issue.
    
      Oswald Prentiss Backus, for the motion, argued in reply to the objection of the court: That the writ was founded upon the provisions of S Revised Statutes (Banks’ 6th ed., page 163); that the application must be made to the supreme court, and that a justice of the supreme court at chambers, or a county judge, had no jurisdiction to grant the writ, and that it must he not only granted by, hut returnable before the supreme court (.People agt. Humphrey, 24 B.a/rboum, 521; 1 Or fury’s Practice, 390).
   Noxon, J.

After considering the provisions of 3 Revised Statutes, 163, and People agt. Humphrey (24 Barbour, 521), I am now of the opinion that the writ can be granted only by the court.

Motion granted.  