
    In re CARL FRANKLIN BARWICK.
    (Filed 29 October, 1947.)
    Habeas Corpus § 3: Appeal and Error § 48—
    In habeas corpus to determine tlie custody of a minor child as between husband and wife separated but not divorced, G. S., 17-39, the findings of the court that the best interests of the infant require that its custody he awarded its mother are sufficient to support the judgment in her favor, and an exception to the signing and entering of the judgment cannot be sustained.
    Appeal by respondent from Nimocks, J., at Chambers, 12 April, 1947. From LeNOIb.
    Affirmed.
    
      J. A. Jones for petitioner, appellee.
    
    
      J. Faison Thomson and Whitaker <& Jeffress for respondent, appellant.
    
   Per Curiam.

The petition of Madeline Dunn Barwick for the custody of her infant son was beard upon return to the writ of habeas corpus issued under Gr. S., 17-39. Petitioner is separated from ber husband but not divorced. Barwick v. Barwick, ante, 109. After full bearing afforded to petitioner and respondent, and consideration of the supporting affidavits of each, judgment was rendered awarding custody of the child to the petitioner, the court finding “that the best interest and general welfare of said infant Carl Franklin Barwick require thaL its custody, care and control be awarded to its mother, Mrs. Madeline Dunn Barwick.” Provision was made for respondent father to have the child with him at certain times. Respondent appealed. His only exception “was to the signing and entering of judgment.” The facts found by the court below were sufficient to support the judgment.

Judgment affirmed.  