Lynchburg Virginian. [volume] (Lynchburg [Va.]) 1829-185?, 1845-01-20

IHE CHANGES Ao,iSsr BIsuor ONpr.poNK-1'he
teslimony IN this interesting invest gstion by the Courts
n Bahops. int" the charges agans, Bishop Ondcrdonk
have been ordered Ia be published. when the public wi
have an opportunity OF Judging Of the justice Of the dec
sion which :he Court has come TO. During the invsst.
gaiinn the newspapers filled with various rumors
Of the maine 81 The charges and the character Of the ry
drncc presented. The only distinct charges which have
yet ransplrcd We find in Of the New York Sunday
papers. The Whole subject is one which has excited
mach interest In the community and copy the state
menl VI the paper alluded To. as follows:
The trial OF Bishop Onccrdonk appears To have been
the great feature Of the week. aud the extraordinary re.
cult has occupied the attention Of bo, the moral and re-.
g'ous world. TO The exclusion Of almost every other To-
pic. The course Of proceeding thus Bishop Onder
donk presented by three Of his brethren of tho Epis
copal Church, under that Of the Church which
authorizes presenn'ent by portion Of The bishops OF
by general convention Of The ducese. The charge.
were nine In number. aud charged generally that The
bishop was guilty OF mnniality aud npurity in The
ms0aef and forth sci forth in the specifications anexe
The ninth charge, with its specification, was thrown
ont by the Court. being too vague in setting forth
with Sufficient mnu.eness time. place and circumstan
ces.
The first charges and specification sets forth ina, in
June 1887, when travelling towards Syracuse In car
Iiage with the Rev Mr. Butler and his wife, he rudely
sn,bracsd the lady, passed his hands indecenly undo,
her clothes. Sc.
The second charge -pecfed the same thing with the
same isuy heI hnsband being present, Re.
The third alleges thai in the sumner of 1885, the
Bishop was guilty OF adecency towards Miss Jane A.
bowies, whilst travelling 10 public stage towards The
city OF Utica. and that Miss b. SO outraged by his
condac,, a she had TO leave the coach before getting
to the end Of her journey OF this however the bshop
was acquitted, there being prooi offered t, support the
allega tIon.
The fourth charge tina, in July, 1899, he insnlted
Miss Anne Wilson, BY llrnsting his hand into her b,-
som. In" charge was abanJonei. the specification
~" being supported BY the attendance Of the witness ma
med.
The MIN sci forth that in the summer of 1911 he IN
suited Ellen NJ. Raddrrow, whilst ACCOMPANYING her
home from Church 10 The house OF her mother where he
was engaged Ia dmner.
The sixth charge was. tina; i'm nadat.y afler the
bishop and Miss Ellen had got inside the house, he out
ragged The feelings OF Jane f. RudJerow The sister Of
me a'esad lady. BY thrasng his hand into her bosom
on these two charges the Bishop was found guilty.
The seven,ha aid eighth charges aud specifications ac
case the bishop If similar ceduc, towards the wife of
the Rev Henry NJ. Beare during visit to the houss
VI that gentleman. at Liuleaeck L. First while on
lhe way home from Church. in the middle of the dsv
aud sabseqeny afef they had ,arved nthomr. or this
the Bishop was fund guilty.
The testimony sddu,,d in support Of these ura,c
charges Is said 10 have teeh Of very unique character