, 1869-07-22

ANUN kuhk lRT ~ t-A H*SSA%S-E4 ~
rather desnltory manner, cAl The attention d
tie court to the objection ~ I. appeared Oh tft
1aee Ok the citation even granting. tho existence
q The powers for which lny learned rnena, Judge
Otis, contends II the casc published IN tho con.
yeutf1n Of ISIS u carefully examined It Htu b
found to xdlrm conclrstse5, and think over.
whelmitsly determine lh!s point. nud know OF
no knsse.to The deezslou- Ian quito readJ 10
admit .Aat ths court y nnt bound by tha declal1s
Of any other court II ts NOT the judgment IN this
sase We % nos p1esd + IN bar; but the reason
cred 80 thoroughly settled in this diocese as q
State thai ! aha'l BE- quite surprtsed u
ny sssstssfsl e; ,,, s9ua5 doss ~ 9teerwiss he vie
lon Of Chief Justice Joaa Y. Wilson ara au Fqb-
lshed In the arpcndl1 70 the Bishops addTeza
per1od al % a ero1 Tss msds d. 10y sJ ia eooa,.l of @ ar
HheeI 70 obtain an injunction aEres1iug III pro-
eeedins1. Tnh attempt TO interfere with ms its-
i1eis eonud % ressss, % and PREPARED I % s1a snsa @
10 me bsu q eoupla.ns on ny personal and ot1aal
responsibility" Judge OTIS sussreated thla NOM
5aass ~ az es.s III M tas aaa'sa ae
sss;ss ss5ss9ssa :; 1s', a,!a RzsssnSaE Il
oily ssy thai tbs msaopt % sszssr IN this esse, s4
characterized h1 great <4oqutrce and ability, pre-
senss ne sVMtt'oEtsy tass nsye been a3ie 70
favor Of the POSITION that tae Btshop, through bis
Tlea;oua power, could, nj anI tine, bring any of
dspet'J nd e enpnsney. ana % noss IS Sly pp. ppe.
would b ~ s:sd i eoaa p4eseas las opposite
e1ess 70 comment upon ne ses5 s6ss arSunens 1 of
Judge Arlington. which aooses somewhst
q n =. .5s ls ,s, sas1 IN 1;,sso, p
opinion Ct The Judge. u Dane, delivered b. the
Hon. J. II I'nsouy diminishing TIA lnt1nctton, "
nl*o VARIABLE docrncat Of ecclesiastical prece-
deut1" Upon reading that IUDecdaSton OF the
opinion md tcai aniha.1tJ g1rea By Dy oxn do
eesx1 In taFor OF tbs oP!nn1 m Chief
sosS Msop ss .s 1e Is,,g g,3asss
opinion and discovering what the psecedenn were.
tnat they mr absolutely conclusive u2on 1hts
s ste u e ~ g essF ST. =. FEE
opinion an aaoqt TO read; II .was
not became be had rason 70 benere, bat becaass
be vas oedIt'y informed. and The htshop defend
ID hh ground upon The sanr identical ground tnat
{ nj! ssns a'ao. sssresas = L: t'so9 h'sas2
2s.ss T. ns any nesson wno r.. s9sses e
I1tsc wl!son held to The cont7rI On
a,ne, 1ssis III s,Dse s pI Ne
% eeing c1eaio,, edn a nro@ed,' 9e inssaoen IS Ine
1H aMns, inforait.oa "a nna majority Of the Tes-
y ol the church Of Whkn the accused + MIL
sreE, :. or by fhrce presbyter1 Of M diocese en-
10 doupt thar the enuns &re the law OF tho
Au1rn, at least 80 far as they assume. 70
erYsIale upo1 kaJ specific subject and
y irmatez!nl rhcthet tneT operate xs grant
Il nex powtra o. II limitation Of poweT1 oe1ore
xerHscd II Il, therefore, unnecessary to Inquire
Ihctntr the cannna uphu the subject OF discipline
rant new porcsa OF hnat Rad res.r,sn the poNet1
.eiors e1e7clsed By Eahops in this c.a.a Of cases.
ttBnt We exnnos Eahsz-lne 10 tue doctrine con-
ended for by the respondents = counsel Nhe RiAhopA
nat The Hlihop can proceed tn-a case not pro-
ioed for In the caaon hy Eere construction
ron the grounds that being c1edlbly IN
o1neI, As IN this csse, Is better and
ucre satisfactory ground OF proceeding than
public runoE." It, IL well-establlshed
nlc Ct construction tint ne Specifications Of i
uote OF procedure exclude By Implication nj
ahcgx" Now, II On the hearing cf that case, J
rom the opinion in which have j1ss read, II wis !
assisted BY the eo.csel ro7 1T, HaseT taas the