New-York tribune. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1866-1924, 1869-07-30
THE ECCLESIASTICAL TRIAL.

CONCLUSION OF THE ARGUMENT BEFORE THE
SUPERIOR COURT-A DECISION TO BE GIVEN
TO-DAY.
CHICAGO, July 29.-The Superior Court of
this city, Judge Jameson presiding, before which the
Ecclesiastical injunction is having hearing reas
sembled at O'Clock yesterday morning. The Hon. NJ.
W. Fuller resumed his argument in behalf Of the Rov.
Mr. Cheney. He cited authorities In support
OF the bill upon which the injunction was granted. He
dwet at length upon the facts offered to prove that
the Ecclesiastical Court was improperly constituted and
laid special stress upon the fact that the the land
should be recognized in Ecclesiastical Courts. lie cited
evidence 70 prove that common law principles have
always held and do now hold good IN such cases ana ne
challenged any one to show "a rne' "a Line, or word
in the eaaonS Of the % Diocese OF Limos
Of common law in their courts Conse-
IT, as the counsel Tor the prosecution heu assessors arc
in point Of fact associate judges then he would refer 10
Blackstone. which showed that the right TO challenge
Judges formerly existed and at the present day this H. re-
placed by the right for change Of venue The ground of
who to judge Of the law fact and 70 see That tho
trial was fairy conducted, haa 5eauy lUrG h anu *
law governing Courts Martial tho criminal for good and
lust reasons may challenge after the jurors have been
sworn. The humanity Of common law, IN the matter Of
the right Of challenge, was dwe upon lie next referred
TO that part OF tho argument OF Mr. Judd wherein he
compared the Ecclesiastical Court 70 the trial OF tho
President Of the United States and had said that
senators in such cases can DO chalIenged;
Mr.. Fuller read from volume three OF the trial
Of Mr. johnson, where Senator Wade was challenged
drawn. He held that canon 20 really intends that the
right OF challenge shall be given In what part OF the
canon he Inquired IL II lald down that the right Of
challenge shall be refusedt They had CHALLENGED the
Rev Mr. Snyder and have witnesses 90 show he was as
qualified sttiHg Assessor The right OF challenge
was absolutely denied The next question Is the eNccp
tons filed the Jurisdiction, HIS objection 10 the cta-
tim is that it airnavely asserts powers belonging to
the Bishop given him by the canon. He claimed the
executions such should have been sustained, IN
asmuch they 10 the jurisdiction OF the Court ana
that this had the nght TO examine lhto thoso Oh
iectODs and decide whether the ecclesiastical tribunal
was proceeding in conformity with tho laws ot tho
Church.
trely the legal aspect OF the case. Inc complainant
had not denied his guilt wherefore his hands not being
clean the Court could not interfere He then reviewed
he steps which had been taken before the Church Court
cOntendng that appearance before that Court was sub
mission Court but he did not press the point lie
then reviewed the question Of temporal interest, upon
which iueTpOsiOn asked, arguing there was llght
Of prOperty II the salary constituted thcn there
was sufficient showing that salary would necessarily
be stopped and IL IL stopped tho contract with the
Church not up 10 show that u illegal proceedings
were taken he could still recover under his contract with
the Church. He claimed that the bill also failed TO aver
| fraud; but 10 does state irTcparable injury, and
| the possibility OF multiplicity OF suits. lie de-
MED that the facts set up In the bill supported ether
nor does the bill show there is no remedy al law ana the
bill must be dismissed lie then considered inc contents
OF the BILL which he claimed 10 be an application 10 one
court 10 enOm another tribunal IN the prosecution OF
Ti0btfnl authority directed the discipline OF minister
He had failed ind any authority or warrant or huch
interference. A Court OF Equity would not RESTRAIN
prosecution law, unless 10 enable inc prOcuIcch o
evidence until at Judgment Is TAKEN ana an equta
lie defense may be set mp lie concluded by saying tha
the proceeding in organizing the EcclesaSucal court
not regular was the canOns beyond the reach OF
yestgation, as they did not 80 70 JuIlsdlctIOh anu
claimed that there complete waiver on inc part Oh
Mr. Cheney by reason OF his having excepted 10 the pre-
| sentiment This concludes the argument. Inc court VIII
| render It's decision tomorrow