The daily dispatch. [volume] (Richmond [Va.]) 1850-1884, 1866-06-04

Nc Gill say at the station-hOusc that me IN
tended to demand rcparation Of Father
Andrews, and if it was not given him, he
would deliver lecture to the Protestants
of the city, and by that means get money.
Collins remarked to him that he was about
to turn renegade to which he replied that
he did not intend to give up his faith, ne
only intended to make some expositions.
| Witness also testified that McCill collected
twenty-five dollars in his presence. He
had heard him say that, with what he bad,
if he could get fifteen dollars more he
would he satisfied.
McGll here rejoined 81 beg yonr par
don, sir said that fifteen dollars would
do for that evening. I collected forty dol
lars" He then produced roll OF notes
from his pocket which he said amounted to
forty dollars. The Recorder asked him if
he did not think that fifteen dollars, to-
gethcr with the five dollars that Bishop
McGill had given him, and the ticket that
Father Andrews had given him, was suffi-
cicnt for his immediate wants. McGill re-
piled that he was to be the Judge Of that !;
ii rested with himself entirely.
Mr.. Sturdiyant said: "But if you OBJ
tanned more money, as destitute priest,
than You really needed, You were obtain
ing it under false prctences."
Father Andrews was here called on to eX-
plain an "cxcat," and whether such paper
was evidence that its bearer was a priest in
good standing. He stated that an 'cxeat" :"
was q permit from the bishop Of the dio-
ccsc in which a priest had been ordained
or stationed allowing that priest to GO into
p,;x- ma
often i'm cases of bad health, and some
times when the priest was not in good
standing in his diocese. The mere fact of
the statement upon the face of the paper
that the bearer was not under "eccleSlas-
tical ccnSurcSn - was not evidence that his
character was good, for ecclesiastical cen
Surcs were only passed in extreme cases,
and required adjudication. When priest
was in good standing his "cxeat" was
generally accompanied with letter from
his bishop stating so much, and unless he
had such Il letter it was optional with other
bishops as to whether or not they should
give him authority to perform the func-
tions of 4 priest within their respective
diOceScs. Sometimes they granted such
authority temporarily until they could hear
from the diocese from which the priest
came.
McGil here produced the letter he had
gotten from Bishop McGill while in Penn
sylvania, upon which he wished to show
that he had Bishop McGillS authority to
come here, and ought consequently to
have been cared for by the Bishop. In
this, however, he was disappointed; for
the letter, on the contrary, gave him every
reason to stay away. The Bishop wrote
to him that he had better go into his own
diocese-that OF West Virginia-as there
was great need there OF Jealous priests,
and that he could not give him employ
ment here until he could hear from the
Bishop of Wheeling.
The court concluded that though the
charge was not sustained by the evidence,
the accused had been guilty, in a measure,
of obtaining money under false prctenccS
in begging for more than he wanted.
The court believed that the accused had
violated the ecclesiastical law, but in the
eyes of the civil law no man could he
punished for begging. The court would
therefore discharge the case, advising the
accused hereafter to consult his SuperiorS
and get their advice before he went beg
ging. The court also hoped that the
people would not, in their poor and op-
pressed state, allow themselves to be i'm
posed upon by this man. The accused
was therefore discharged, and went from
the courtroom declaring his intention to
90 to get drink, and commence his
begging again. Altogether, this fellows
impudcnce exceeds anything that We have
ever heard of. After travelling all over
the country, and begging in this man
ncr wherever he went, he comes
here with bad character, and continues
his operations. He must have known that
report of his character had gone before
him; and yet when he is received by the
Catholic clergy here as he ought to have
been, he complains OF having been insulted
and treated rudely by his "brother
priests" He claims to be priest in good
standing and his actions are Of such
character that no Catholic of common
sense would ever respect him as such. lie
stops at Il large hotel, shows his papers
boldly, speaks of himself as 4 priest, and
vet he eats meat upon forbidden days (Which
no practical Catholic tymdn will do) and
talks about delivering lectures to Protest
ants, making certain eXpositions. After
+
suing Father Andrews for slander. Truly
the fellow deserves credit for his assurance.
But enough has been said of him, we hope,
to warn our citizens against his impositions.
He evidently wishes to lead a life of idle
ness and ease under the garb of priest /;
and our people are toopoor to give cncour-
agemcnt to any such.
POLICE ARRESTS Solomon llick, white,
charged with stealing one awning pole and
canvass, the property of James Mathews.
Martha Ann Christian, negro, charged
with stealing dress from Fanny Washing
ton.
Michael George, negro, charged with be-
ing disordcrly in the street and threatening
Policeman William c. Bailey.
Milton Hickman, negro, charged with
being drunk and disordcrly in the house OF
I Hannah Jones.
! James Baldwin, charged with breaking
into the house of Catharine Davis.
: W. II. Siblcy, charged with being drunk
and resisting an officer in the discharge OI