¶1This was an application for a writ of habeas corpus by the father for the liberty of his daughter, as he asserts.
¶2The daughter — Bertha—of Alfred Melan-con, relator, and of Arthemise, his wife, was committed to the Colored Industrial Home for an indefinite term by Hon. Andrew H. Wilson, judge of the juvenile court.
¶3She is 15 years of age.
¶4The mother, Arthemise, on the 7th of July of this year signed an affidavit against her daughter, in which she averred that she was ungovernable and uncontrollable.
¶5She was brought to the juvenile court by the mother and two officers.
¶6The relator avers that Arthemise, the mother, acted in the matter without his knowledge and consent, and that in consequence his daughter is illegally imprisoned and deprived of her liberty.
¶7After relator’s petition had been filed, the judge of the juvenile court filed an appearance, in which he averred; That the child *1051appeared, when before him, as one who had been neglected and exposed to injurious conditions.
¶8That he took the mother’s statement, which was that she and her husband had a large family — eight children — that Bertha had been at work and received small wages; that she was not industrious and had become disobedient and incorrigible and wayward; that she had left home two nights and days, and had fallen, the mother feared, under bad influences; that she and her husband could do nothing with her.
¶9That for these and other reasons of similar character he sent her to the Colored Industrial Home for reformation and proper training.
¶10That he was satisfied that it was for the best interest of the girl.
¶11The ground lurged by the judge — not to issue the rule nisi — is not conclusive as to the facts stated, but it will be taken as true unless denied or put at issue by effect of the averments of the petition of relator.
¶12The relator did not challenge the correctness of the facts constituting the cause which prompted the judge in sending the daughter to the Industrial Home. The petition should have anticipated the facts sufficiently to — in some respect — place the respondent on his defense.
¶13The statement of the trial judge shows that the court of the’first instance had jurisdiction.
¶14In a general way, the determination upon the facts by the lower court has the effect of the verdict of the jury. 9 Eney. of Pleading and Practice, p. 1087.
¶15We will here state: Relator does not sue to obtain the custody of his daughter. He alleges that she ought to be released in order that she might enjoy her liberty.
¶16According to the best doctrine, the writ of habeas corpus will not issue as a matter of course. Its -issuance in a case of this character is a matter of sound legal discretion in, the appellate court. Marr’s, p. 881, § 216.
¶17The juvenile court had the power to make the disposition it did of the case.
¶18It appeared to it as most conducive to the . welfare of the daughter.
¶19The juvenile courts have jurisdiction of the trial of “neglected” and “delinquent”children. Section 9 of the act (3 Rev. Laws, 1904, p. 393).
¶20Further, “whenever the child shall be. found to be neglected within the meaning of the act.”
¶21If there was error on the part of the court of the first instance (we have not found that there was error), it was error on the safe-side. It was error which seeks to protect and improve the condition of things.
¶22On the other hand, if there is error on the part of the father of the girl, it is error which leads to ruin and distress.
¶23The court concluded that there was negligence and indifference on the part of the father, particularly if he did not know that she spent days away from home exposed to bad influences.
¶24The court acted mainly at the instance of the mother. She is the nearest person to the child. The court believed her. The court questioned the daughter, and arrived at the conclusion that there was ground for rendering a judgment.
¶25The law does not provide that the father’s. authority over his child will have the effect of annulling a judgment rendered in a case of which the court has jurisdiction.
¶26For the protection of the child the court has acted. We will not set -aside the action of the court in a proceeding for a writ of habeas corpus.
¶27The relator does not allege that the child is badly treated, or that she would be better • protected by him.
¶28As before stated, he only urges that she. is entitled to her liberty.
¶29*1053Of this there can be no doubt, but we do not understand that she will be deprived of the liberty to which she is entitled by the fact that she will be held under restraint sufficiently necessary to teach her the way to a better condition.
¶30Were we to direct that a rule nisi issue, we would arrive finally at a similar result.
¶31It is sufficient that probable cause for issuing the writ has not been shown. 2 Eney. of Pleading and Practice, p. 1083.
¶32For reasons stated, the application of relator is refused, and his petition is dismissed.