
    BERMUDEZ vs. BERMUDEZ.
    A wife, living out of her husband's house, not allowed to keep her daughter.
    The plaintiff had procured a writ of habeas corpora against his wife, for his two sons and daughter.
    About eight or nine years ago, he was under the necessity of visiting the internal provinces of Spain near Louisiana, and was imprisoned on an alledged breach of their laws; and several years elapsed before he could return to New- Orleans, his place of residence. He had left the whole 9f his effects with his wife, for her support and that of their children, and had directed, besides, the payment of a monthly allowance to her; and during his captivity and absence, had taken measures for the disposal of a tract of land near the city, and the application of as much of the proceeds as would appear needful, to the wants of the family.
    On his return, the lady, who lived in her brother's house, declined returning, or sending the children, to her husband.
    SHE brought the children into Court, in obedience to the writ, declared her readiness to submit to its order, but insisted on her right to retain her children, especially the girl, who appeared to be about eleven years to whom, in her judgment, the cares and attentions of a mother were more necessary than those of a father.
    The Court asked her, why she had refused returning to her husband-she answered, she had reasons which she declined giving.
    
      She was farther asked, whether she had any grounds of complaint against him-whether she Judged him to want the ability or disposition, to educate the children well-or whether she could alledge any. instance of misconduct in him, which it might be improper that the children should witness? She answered all these questions in the negative.
   By the Court.

The paternal house is the proper residence of the family. If the wife chuses to absent herself from it, without offering to the Court any reason therefor, the Court will presume that none exist. De non apparentibus et non eec-istentibus, eadem est lex. In such a case, they must consider her as the faulty parent.

The father is the master of the family. His authority, as to its civil force, is founded in nature, and the care which it is presumed he will have of their education. While his conduct is proper, the Court cannot interfere with his authority, and will cause it to be respected.

The mother, however, is not without her rights. If she be compelled to live separated from him, on account of ill treatment-if, from his conduct, she can shew that the children are not likely to receive a proper education, or that it will be a dangerous example tothem, the Court will afford their aid to her so1icitude, especially in regard to the daqghters, and deprive the father of a power which it is likely that he will abuse. For the irghtof the community to superitend the education of its members, and disallow what, for its own security and wellfare, it sees good to disallow, goes beyond the right and authority of the father. Blisset's case, Lofft's Reports, 748-749.

The Court orders that the plaintiff's Sons arid daughter be delivered th him.  