The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1852-08-03
Supreme Court-special Term.


July 31.-WiRiam +. Walker agt. Isacc H. Ta.tie and
others-Motion 10 Dissolre injunction The complaint
stated that plaintiff minister of the Dretestpt Epls
copal Church of this diocese and that defendants were
in May 1851. in session ecclesiastical commission
under the authority of that Church for the nvestiga
ton Of charges preferred against plaintiff as such minis
ter On that occasion be left with the defendants GER
tain papers, their undertaking TO surrender them
him on the termination OF their investigation He
claims return Of them and that defendants be enjoned
from makiDg any of them 1t also appears clearly,
by the afdavs of defendants, that the papers
ceived the understanding that they should remain in
The possession of the defendants until they were absovcd
all the duties devoyed them by the commission.
and that plaintiff distinctly informed that he at
liberty TO submit papers not or his part he
pleased but !. lie submitted they would be retained
hy the Commissioners until al their duties fuei
That the COMMISSIONERS unanimously made present ment
against him and that the papers arc all maer 20 sustain
the prcsenment That Beard has been duly appointed
TO the plaintiff under that pre- eminent aud Mr. Tut
tie il is the duty q Che commissioners to act
proecutors the trial and that their duties viii not
eeage until after the trial shall have been completed.
The ether defendants in general terms with Mr.
Tuttle Some OF the papers which the pa!ntiH claims.
those of the 5rh class not received by the commits
sioners from Mr Walker but from Dir. Wooster. the
father Miss Wooster who authorized alr. Haley to
place them before the commission to them upon any
trial which might be the reiult Of the commission.
Those papers written by the plaintiff to Mr. Woos
ter and his daughter The commission was applied for
by Mr.. Walker, as he informed Mr.. futile and was
ordereda convened ON ME express request and c at
tended voluntarily before il The plaintiff has failed 10
make out the which his complaint is founded
he complaint alleges that the first four classes de-
lvered by him. on the understanding that they
be al the termination Of the investigation by
the commission All the defendants substantially deny
this say that they delivered up the express
understanding that they to be retained by the
commission until all its duties performed and they
should be dissolved from their labor such commits
siones. The used all the duties showed clearly
that something else understood by both parties than
the duty for which they convened, viz OF de-
tmiDng whether there was cause for presenting the
cused for trial The 18th section Of the 18th Of
this diocese clearly indicates that those who present
to be the prosecutors 1t declares that the defendant
may appear at the trial by counsel and that he do
hose who pres sho have also the like privileges The
thus recognizes the defendant party to the
trial and those who represent the other In every
Trial OF criminal nature must be appointed to
conduct the prosecuton and the church has deemed it
exredent throw this duty the pre@cuters In this
the commis was appointed under the st section
two And the section makes 1t their duty pre-
the accused II there is in their opinion sufficient
ground for prcscntmont The other sections treat the
precnter parties TO the trial which is take place and
the m1kes IL the duty Of the bishop to nominate
twelve rosbyers not being parties to the presentment
fom whom the accused Is to select four his trers All
this that there two parties to the rialthe
accused one and one Is IN any way indicated the
other except the parties presenting; and the eleventh
section shows beyond doubt that those VINO present
10 he the other parity The accused has right TO appear
in porson or by counsel be may choose bat If be APP
pears by COUNSEL then the party presenting has right
way they appear, they the prosecutors the
trial ard their duties arc not fulfilled until the trial
shall be closed BY the very therefore, under which
the papers submitted 10 the DEFENDANTS, they have
sght to retain them uDtishc close Of trial The papers
IN Inc bith cigSS Ncic Wfucp ny aII hbihrf u AT
Wooster lii daughter. They have the tight ~ rs.n
them They have right I? publish them foI gain or
for ar nnEtq! purr6se; but il they contain evidence
ofihc plaintiffs hayipg violated the laws 81 the church
Of which lie i 4 member they have right to hem
before any tribunal Il that church TO show his guilt BY
becoming member and minister Of that church. he has
subjected himself to its juridciion and consented that
his words AZ his writings should be proved before any
Of IT, tribunals before which he Il TO be tried The in
junction must therefore. be dissolved. With co t.
Decisions ~ Hon. Judge Edwards
Stt'cof Pg1me-Motlon TO enlarge time TO make
case granted with $40 costs to be paid by plaintiff
HoiHoh r. MoicoiR James n. Malcolm reference or
dtrcd 70 agcetan suitable amount to be allowed for ali
mony sc.
III t matter n JVH Of Robert Clal--Cormissiong granted
B,Hon IS kttietoH-9iotion for reference granted
Charles a. Doris, &c. Foster Reynolds 3c-SIo.ion
TO make entry secured appeal denied with leave to
make entry that writ OF was dismissed with
judgment for costs instead of judgment Of airmapce
Morgan rs The Mechanics Borking .assoeiaio-Motion
TO dissolve injunction denied
IN te matter II Mary T. X Mari--Commission Of lu.
macy granted.
.qa,on Cisco u.s. Rosonna Cisco-Judgment for divorce
The female child of the said Rosanna born Ia june
last declared to be Observation-Disclosures decreed the care
and custody Of Elizabeth the child Of the patties (be
tween three and four years Of age).
IN The matter Of The application Of The Mayor &c velqiire
10 Suyresdnt sqareMoton TO confirm the report COM
missioners granted