be represented if the child has been abducted. Where was it
taken from?

"Mr. Bailey proceeded to state that the child had been taken by a
nun from No. 5, Rosemary Street, without the mother's consent,
and was now imprisoned in the convent. The father appeared to be
indifferent, or to have given a sort of general acquiescence.
This was Mrs. Ginx's thirteenth child, around whom gathered the
concentrated affections

"Mr. D'ACERBITY (interrupting the learned gentleman). We have
no time for sentiment here, Mr. Bailey. If the father consented,
can you call it abduction? It looks like reduction. (Laughter.)

"Mr. Bailey called attention to the consolidated statutes of
criminal law, and said he was going for illegal detention rather
than abduction, and argued at great length from section 56. At
the conclusion of the argument, after refusing to hear Mr.
Stigma,

"Mr. D'Acerbity said that the case clearly did not come within
the section, and he was afraid the learned counsel knew it. The
father had been a consenting party, on the counsel's own
statement, to the child's removal, and no suggestion had been
made that he had withdrawn his consent. He should refuse a
summons.

"Mr. Bailey endeavored to address the magistrate but was stopped.

"Mr. D'ACERBITY. I have no more to say. You can apply to the