The New York herald. [volume] (New York [N.Y.]) 1840-1920, 1872-01-04
BISHOP VS.. PRIEST.

The Srnntal In the Catholic Church. Bishop
O'Hara ssshows Cause'' Before Judge
Gamble Why Father Stack should Mes R(
MISUNDERSTANDING the Locks md Bolt4
From the Church Doors--Another Priest
AppOinted-Threa< Of the Court to Punish
All Who Interfere With stack. sll hAi y
s.,f3 WiLLIAMsPoRT, Pa, Jan. 8, 1872.
Bishop O'Hara appeared to-day by his cOunseIA
Maynard, Engermarks and Parker, In compliance
with the order OF Judge Gamble, requiring MIN ID
show cause why Father Stack should not be red
stored to his pastoral rights as he enjoyed then4
previous to the Bishops letter of November g. 1871
The Court convened at ten A. NJ, and at suggest
tion OF defendants counsel adjourned till halfpast
two p. M. laleaTal Nr1 y
At halr-past two p. M. the Court again conveneda
when the defence put In the following answer
BISHOP O'HARA ON THE WAR PATH.
They deny that the Court has jurisdiction to rex
quire said defendant to answer; that the Court
having refused to dissolve the preliminary Injunc@
ton, but having continued the same until the ana(
hearing on further order has thereby decreed that
the act Of the defendant was null anu void, and
that the complainant was not bound thereby; thaf
acting consclentiously he removed him to Athensd
Pa, and that Father Stack was apparently pleasedf
that he (the Bishop has taken an appeal TO th4
Supreme Court, and Intends prosecuting 1t as soon
as practicable. $50 %"Fiia I
ENDEAv0RING TO LOCK THE PRIEST OUT OF HIS
CHURCH. ..f..,f, 4
An af1davit of Father Stack sets forth that slncd
the granting Of the preliminary injunction tha
Bishop has violated the order OF the Court by intro
ducing Father Garvey as priest of the Annuncattonf
that ne has performed priestly functions In tn9
Church OF the Annunciatlon IN defiance therco1
Bishop persists In interfering with MicnaeE
p. Stack pastor Of SAID church, causing dlssen{
sions; that certain persons, with intent TO- evadd
the injunction, have unawfuny entered the church.
removed the locks and fasteningS and substitute6
Others thus interfering with the rights -Of sal6
Stack; that he IL unable TO enter said CnuiCh, ana
cannot exercise his lawful control. .,f 81,
THE BISHOP MUST PUT HIM BACK.
II the appeal to the Supreme Cont ls prosecuted
without delay they ask no further order from the
Court, but the Bishop, directly or Indirectly at4
tempts to evade the Injunction as 1t now stands
they will press the motion for the distinct revOca4
ton by the Bishop OF his letter OF removal and h9
reinstatement OF Father stack by the Affirmative acA
ton oil the Bishop. N4 FANtt ~ Dn.-9~A :
IL f 4 TIMELY JUDICIAL WARMING. atf,,
The Judge at the suggestion of the counsel foQ
Father stack cautioned oil persons from any aex
tempt to interfere with Father Stack in the cOntrO
OF the church, and threatened summary proC6SQ
against anv who should attempt TO disturb mis- pOs&
session while the Injunction stands.
nLl CONTRADIOTINa A FALSE srATBNENT ICl 4
Father Stack has filed his affidavit In reply TO tho3
Bishops answer denying that he acquiesced IN thus
removal to Athens, he alleging that the RishOU
Jailed to perform the conditions OF compromise
which ne (the Bishop proposed. 9vsg iei71UCl